Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Abdominal Trauma: A Case-Matched Study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The use of laparoscopic surgery in abdominal emergencies, such as in trauma, has had a slow acceptance. The advantages described with this approach include less postoperative pain, faster recovery, quicker return to everyday activities, and fewer wound complications. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare outcomes following laparoscopic versus open surgery for abdominal trauma (either blunt or penetrating). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with abdominal trauma who underwent laparoscopic surgery from January 2013 to May 2016 were compared with 19 patients undergoing open surgery during the same time period. Patients were matched (11) for age, gender, body-mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, hemodynamic stability, and injury mechanism. Intra- and postoperative variables were compared between groups. RESULTS: Laparoscopic group displayed a significantly shorter operative time (93.3 versus 134.2 minutes; P < .009), lower estimated blood loss (100 versus 600 mL; P < .019), faster return to normal diet (1.6 versus 2.4 days; P < .039), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (3.8 versus. 5.6 days; P < .042). There were no statistical significant differences in 30-day mortality between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for abdominal trauma, either blunt or penetrating, is safe and technically feasible in hemodynamically stable patients. We found in our study that laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, faster return to normal diet, and shorter hospital LOS.