Analysis of laparoscopy in trauma11No competing interests declared.

Abstract

The optimum roles for laparoscopy in trauma have yet to be established. To date, reviews of laparoscopy in trauma have been primarily descriptive rather than analytic. This article analyzes the results of laparoscopy in trauma. Outcome analysis was done by reviewing 37 studies with more than 1,900 trauma patients, and laparoscopy was analyzed as a screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic tool. Laparoscopy was regarded as a screening tool if it was used to detect or exclude a positive finding (eg, hemoperitoneum, organ injury, gastrointestinal spillage, peritoneal penetration) that required operative exploration or repair. Laparoscopy was regarded as a diagnostic tool when it was used to identify all injuries, rather than as a screening tool to identify the first indication for a laparotomy. It was regarded as a diagnostic tool only in studies that mandated a laparotomy (gold standard) after laparoscopy to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic findings. Costs and charges for using laparoscopy in trauma were analyzed when feasible. As a screening tool, laparoscopy missed 1% of injuries and helped prevent 63% of patients from having a trauma laparotomy. When used as a diagnostic tool, laparoscopy had a 41% to 77% missed injury rate per patient. Overall, laparoscopy carried a 1% procedure-related complication rate. Cost-effectiveness has not been uniformly proved in studies comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy. Laparoscopy has been applied safely and effectively as a screening tool in stable patients with acute trauma. Because of the large number of missed injuries when used as a diagnostic tool, its value in this context is limited. Laparoscopy has been reported infrequently as a therapeutic tool in selected patients, and its use in this context requires further study.