Laparoscopic approach in abdominal emergencies: a 5-year experience at a single center

Background. Laparoscopy is ever more common in both elective and emergency surgery. In fact, in abdominal emergencies it enables the resolution of preoperative diagnostic doubts as well as treatment of the underlying disease. We present a retrospective study of the results of a 5-year experience at a single center. Patients and methods. Between September 2006 and August 2011, 961 patients were treated via laparoscopy, including 486 emergency cases (15 gastroduodenal perforation; 165 acute cholecystitis; 255 acute appendicitis; 15 pelvic inflammatory disease and non-specific abdominal pain [NSAP]; 36 small bowel obstruction). All procedures were conducted by a team trained in laparoscopic surgery. Results. The conversion rate was 22/486 patients (4.53%). A definitive laparoscopic diagnosis was possible in over 96% of cases, and definitive treatment via laparoscopy was possible in most of these. Conclusions Our own experience confirms the literature evidence that laparoscopy is a valid option in the surgical treatment of abdominal emergencies. In any case, it must be performed by a dedicated and highly experienced team. Correct patient selection is also important, to enable the most suitable approach for each given situation.

Diagnosis of intra-abdominal injuries can be challenging in multitrauma patients with associated injuries. Our experience and review of the literature

ntroduction. Trauma is the most common cause of death and disability among patients during the first four decades of life. Abdominal trauma is reported to be the 3rd most common injured region. Clinical examination may be unreliable in the evaluation of these patients especially in the presence of associated injuries. Therefore the use of diagnostic tools is essential in the management of the injured patient with abdominal trauma and additional injuries. Patients and Methods. During 1 year period from December 2010 to November 2011 we recorded the patients that presented to the emergency department of our hospital and were found to suffer from intra-abdominal injuries. These patients were divided in two groups depending on whether they had additional comorbid injuries or not. Several parameters were recorded and compared between the two groups, such as mechanism of injury, general status and hemodynamic stability of the patient on presentation, physical examination, use of imaging modalities and concomitant findings, need for surgical intervention and mortality rates. Furthermore the discrepancy between physical findings and final diagnosis after the use of diagnostic adjuncts is reported. Results. We recorded 31 patients with abdominal trauma. 13 (42%) patients were found to suffer from abdominal trauma and associated injuries (Group I), whereas 18 (58%) presented with abdominal trauma alone (Group II). The patients of the first group presented hemodynamic instability in 38% of cases while the patients of the second in 22% of cases. Reduced consciousness was present in 38% in group I versus 17% in group II. Signs of abdominal injury during clinical examination were present in only 15% in group I versus 72% in group II that represented a remarkable difference between the two groups. Conservative treatment was possible in 15% of patients with additional injuries and in 22% of patients with abdominal injury alone. In group I there were two deaths whereas in group II all patients survived. Conclusion. In patients with abdominal trauma, associated injuries seem to add to the severity of injury and indicate a worse prognosis. Clinical examination is unreliable and misleading in the majority of these patients and the use of diagnostic tools cannot be overemphasized.