The Role of Diagnostic Laparoscopy in the Evaluation of Abdominal Trauma Patients

PURPOSE: We aimed to identify factors related to delayed intervention in abdominal trauma patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy using a nationwide databank.

METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, abdominal trauma patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy were retrospectively evaluated using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Patients who underwent delayed interventions after a primary diagnostic laparoscopy were compared with those who did not. Factors associated with poor outcomes that are usually correlated with overlooked injuries and delayed interventions were also analyzed.

RESULTS: Of the 5221 studied patients, 4682 (89.7%) underwent inspection without any intervention. Only 48 (0.9%) patients underwent delayed interventions after primary laparoscopy. Compared with patients receiving immediate interventions during primary diagnostic laparoscopy, patients receiving delayed interventions were more likely to have small intestine injuries (58.3% vs. 28.3%, p < 0.001). Among patients with hollow viscus injuries, a significantly higher probability of overlooked injuries that required delayed intervention was observed in patients with small intestine injuries (small intestine injury: 16.8%; gastric injury: 2.5%; large intestine injury: 5.2%). However, delayed small intestine repair did not significantly affect the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.249), acute kidney injury (AKI) (p = 0.998), or hospital length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.053). In contrast, significantly positive relationships between delayed large intestine repair and poor outcomes were observed (SSI, odds ratio = 19.544, p = 0.021; AKI, odds ratio = 27.368, p < 0.001; LOS, β = 13.541, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Most examinations and interventions (near 90%) were successful during primary laparoscopy for abdominal trauma patients. Small intestine injuries were easily overlooked. Delayed small intestine repair-related poor outcomes were not observed.