Late video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus thoracostomy tube reinsertion for retained hemothorax after penetrating trauma, a prospective randomized control study.

BACKGROUND: Early video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is the recommended treatment of choice for retained hemothorax (RH). A prospective single-center randomized control study was conducted to compare outcomes between VATS and thoracostomy tube (TT) reinsertion for patients with RH after penetrating trauma in a resource constrained unit. Our hypothesis was that patients with a RH receiving VATS instead of TT reinsertion would have a shorter hospital stay and lesser complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2014 to November 2019, stable patients with thoracic penetrating trauma complicated with retained hemothoraces were randomized to either VATS or TT reinsertion. The outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOS) and complications. RESULTS: Out of the 77 patients assessed for eligibility, 65 patients were randomized and 62 analyzed: 30 in the VATS arm and 32 in the TT reinsertion arm. Demographics and mechanisms of injury were comparable between the two arms. Length of hospital stay was: preprocedure: VATS 6.8 (+/-2.8) days and TT 6.6 (+/- 2.4) days (p = 0.932) and postprocedure: VATS 5.1 (+/-2.3) days, TT 7.1 (+/-6.3) days (p = 0.459), total LOS VATS 12 (+/- 3.9) days, and TT 14.4 (+/-7) days (p = 0.224). The TT arm had 15 complications compared to the VATS arm of four (p = 0.004). There were two additional procedures in the VATS arm and 10 in the TT arm (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: VATS proved to be the better treatment modality for RH with fewer complications and less need of additional procedures, while the LOS between the two groups was not statistically different.

Source control in emergency general surgery: WSES, GAIS, SIS-E, SIS-A guidelines.

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are among the most common global healthcare challenges and they are usually precipitated by disruption to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Their successful management typically requires intensive resource utilization, and despite the best therapies, morbidity and mortality remain high. One of the main issues required to appropriately treat IAI that differs from the other etiologies of sepsis is the frequent requirement to provide physical source control. Fortunately, dramatic advances have been made in this aspect of treatment. Historically, source control was left to surgeons only. With new technologies non-surgical less invasive interventional procedures have been introduced. Alternatively, in addition to formal surgery open abdomen techniques have long been proposed as aiding source control in severe intra-abdominal sepsis. It is ironic that while a lack or even delay regarding source control clearly associates with death, it is a concept that remains poorly described. For example, no conclusive definition of source control technique or even adequacy has been universally accepted. Practically, source control involves a complex definition encompassing several factors including the causative event, source of infection bacteria, local bacterial flora, patient condition, and his/her eventual comorbidities. With greater understanding of the systemic pathobiology of sepsis and the profound implications of the human microbiome, adequate source control is no longer only a surgical issue but one that requires a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach. Thus, while any breach in the GI tract must be controlled, source control should also attempt to control the generation and propagation of the systemic biomediators and dysbiotic influences on the microbiome that perpetuate multi-system organ failure and death. Given these increased complexities, the present paper represents the current opinions and recommendations for future research of the World Society of Emergency Surgery, of the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery of Surgical Infection Society Europe and Surgical Infection Society America regarding the concepts and operational adequacy of source control in intra-abdominal infections.

The firearm pandemic: time to act and flatten the curve.

N/A.

Postoperative pain management in non-traumatic emergency general surgery: WSES-GAIS-SIAARTI-AAST guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous population that may present with several underlying diseases. Timeous emergency surgical treatment should be supplemented with high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled acute postoperative pain may result in significant complications. While pain management after elective surgery has been standardized in perioperative pathways, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a haphazard practice. The present recommended pain management guidelines are for pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention. It is meant to provide clinicians a list of indications to prescribe the optimal analgesics even in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorsed the project and approved the final manuscript. CONCLUSION: Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies.

Penetrating renal injuries: an observational study of non-operative management and the impact of opening Gerota's fascia.

BACKGROUND: Non-operative management has become increasingly popular in the treatment of renal trauma. While data are robust in blunt mechanisms, the role of non-operative management in penetrating trauma is less clear. Additionally, there is a paucity of data comparing gunshot and stab wounds. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients admitted to a high-volume level 1 trauma center (Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town) with penetrating abdominal trauma was performed. Patients with renal injuries were identified and compared based on mechanism [gunshot (GSW) vs. stab] and management strategy (operative vs. non-operative). Primary outcomes of interest were mortality and failure of non-operative management. Secondary outcomes of interest were nephrectomy rates, Clavien-Dindo complication rate, hospital length of stay, and overall morbidity rate. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients with renal injuries were identified (82 GSW, 68 stab). Overall, 55.2% of patients required emergent/urgent laparotomy. GSWs were more likely to cause grade V injury and concurrent intra-abdominal injuries (p > 0.05). The success rate of non-operative management was 91.6% (89.9% GSW, 92.8% stab, p = 0.64). The absence of hematuria on point of care testing demonstrated a negative predictive value of 98.4% (95% CI 96.8-99.2%). All but 1 patient who failed non-operative management had associated intra-abdominal injuries requiring surgical intervention. Opening of Gerota's fascia resulted in nephrectomy in 55.6% of cases. There were no statistically significant risk factors for failure of non-operative management identified on univariate logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: NOM of penetrating renal injuries can be safely and effectively instituted in both gunshot and stab wounds with a very low number of patients progressing to laparotomy. Most patients fail NOM for associated injuries. During laparotomy, the opening of Gerota's fascia may lead to increased risk of nephrectomy. Ongoing study with larger populations is required to develop effective predictive models of patients who will fail NOM.

Penetrating abdominal trauma in the era of selective conservatism: a prospective cohort study in a level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Global trend has seen management shift towards selective conservatism in penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT). The purpose of this study is to compare the presentation; management; and outcomes of patients with PAT managed operatively versus non-operatively. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of all patients Ùpresenting with PAT to Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town from 01 May 2015 to 30 April 2017. Presentation; management; and outcomes of patients were compared. Univariate predictors of delayed operative management (DOM) were explored. RESULTS: Over the 2-year study period, 805 patients with PAT were managed. There were 502 (62.4%); and 303 (37.6%) patients with gunshot (GSW) and stab wounds (SW), respectively. The majority were young men (94.7%), with a mean age of 28.3 years (95% CI 27.7-28.9) and median ISS of 13 (IQR 9-22). Successful non-operative management was achieved in 304 (37.7%) patients, and 501 (62.5%) were managed operatively. Of the operative cases, 477 (59.3%) underwent immediate laparotomy and 24 (3.0%) DOM. On univariate analysis, number; location; and mechanism of injuries were not associated with DOM. Rates of therapeutic laparotomy were achieved in 90.3% in the immediate, and 80.3% in the DOM cohorts. The mortality rate was 1.3, 11.3 and 0% in the in the NOM, immediate laparotomy and DOM subgroups, respectively. The rate of complications was no different in the immediate and DOM cohorts (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with PAT in the absence of haemodynamic instability; peritonism; organ evisceration; positive radiological findings, or an unreliable clinical examination, can be managed expectantly without increased morbidity or mortality.

A Prospective Audit of 805 Consecutive Patients With Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: Evolving Beyond Injury Mechanism Dictating Management.

BACKGROUND: Global trends of penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) have seen a shift toward a selectively conservative management strategy. However, its widespread adoption for gunshot injuries has been sluggish. The purpose of this study is to compare the injury mechanisms of gunshot (GSW) and stab wounds (SW) to the abdomen in presentation, management, and outcomes. METHODS: Prospective cohort study, set in Cape Town, South Africa, over 2 years. All patients presenting to the center with PAT during this time were included. Presentation, management, and outcomes were compared by injury mechanism, with a focus on the operative strategy (operative vs nonoperative). RESULTS: During the study period, 805 patients (SW 37.6%; GSW 62.4%) with PAT were managed. Immediate laparotomies were performed in 119 (39.3%) SW and 355 (70.7%) GSW, with a therapeutic laparotomy rate of 85.7% and 91.8% for SW and GSW, respectively. Nonoperative management (NOM) was implemented in 184 SW (60.7%) and 147 GSW (29.3%) (P < 0.001), with a 92.9% and 92.5% success rate for SW and GSW, respectively. The therapeutic laparotomy rate for the delayed laparotomies (DOM) was 69.2% for SW, and 90.9% for GSW. The accuracy of clinical assessment (with adjuncts) in determining the need for laparotomy was: GSW-92% and SW-91%. Univariate analysis revealed the mechanism not to be associated with DOM. The overall mortality rate was 7.2%, and nonfatal morbidities 22.2%. CONCLUSION: Although GSW is a more morbid and often fatal injury, the general principles of selective conservatism hold true for both GSW and SW, equally.

A pandemic recap: lessons we have learned.

On January 2020, the WHO Director General declared that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. The world has faced a worldwide spread crisis and is still dealing with it. The present paper represents a white paper concerning the tough lessons we have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, an international and heterogenous multidisciplinary panel of very differentiated people would like to share global experiences and lessons with all interested and especially those responsible for future healthcare decision making. With the present paper, international and heterogenous multidisciplinary panel of very differentiated people would like to share global experiences and lessons with all interested and especially those responsible for future healthcare decision making.

Damage control in penetrating cardiac trauma.

Definitive management of hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating cardiac injuries remains controversial between those who propose aggressive invasive care versus those who opt for a less invasive or non-operative approach. This controversy even extends to cases of hemodynamically unstable patients in which damage control surgery is thought to be useful and effective. The aim of this article is to delineate our experience in the surgical management of penetrating cardiac injuries via the creation of a clear and practical algorithm that includes basic principles of damage control surgery. We recommend that all patients with precordial penetrating injuries undergo trans-thoracic ultrasound screening as an integral component of their initial evaluation. In those patients who arrive hemodynamically stable but have a positive ultrasound, a pericardial window with lavage and drainage should follow. We want to emphasize the importance of the pericardial lavage and drainage in the surgical management algorithm of these patients. Before this concept, all positive pericardial windows ended up in an open chest exploration. With the coming of the pericardial lavage and drainage procedure, the reported literature and our experience have shown that 25% of positive pericardial windows do not benefit and/or require further invasive procedures. However, in hemodynamically unstable patients, damage control surgery may still be required to control ongoing bleeding. For this purpose, we propose a surgical management algorithm that includes all of these essential clinical aspects in the care of these patients.

El manejo definitivo de los pacientes hemodinámicamente estables con heridas cardíacas penetrantes continúa siendo controversial con abordajes invasivos versus manejos conservadores. Estas posiciones contrarias se extienden hasta aquellos casos de pacientes hemodinámicamente inestables donde se ha descrito y considerado la cirugía de control de daños como un procedimiento útil y efectivo. El objetivo de este artículo es presentar la experiencia en el manejo quirúrgico de heridas cardíacas penetrantes con la creación de un algoritmo práctico que incluye los principios básicos del control de daños. Se recomienda que a todos los pacientes con heridas precordiales penetrantes se les debe realizar un ultrasonido torácico como componente integral de la evaluación inicial. Aquellos que presenten un ultrasonido torácico positivo y se encuentren hemodinámicamente estables se les debe realizar una ventana pericárdica con posterior lavado. Se ha demostrado que el 25% de las ventanas pericárdicas positivas no se benefician ni requieren de posteriores abordajes quirúrgicos invasivos. Antes de este concepto, todos los pacientes con ventana pericárdica positiva terminaban en una exploración abierta del tórax y del pericárdico.Los pacientes hemodinámicamente inestables requieren de una cirugía de control de daños para un adecuado y oportuno control del sangrado. Con este propósito, se propone un algoritmo de manejo quirúrgico que incluye todos estos aspectos esenciales en el abordaje de este grupo de pacientes.

Damage control in penetrating cardiac trauma / El control de daños en el trauma cardíaco penetrante

Abstract Definitive management of hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating cardiac injuries remains controversial between those who propose aggressive invasive care versus those who opt for a less invasive or non-operative approach. This controversy even extends to cases of hemodynamically unstable patients in which damage control surgery is thought to be useful and effective. The aim of this article is to delineate our experience in the surgical management of penetrating cardiac injuries via the creation of a clear and practical algorithm that includes basic principles of damage control surgery. We recommend that all patients with precordial penetrating injuries undergo trans-thoracic ultrasound screening as an integral component of their initial evaluation. In those patients who arrive hemodynamically stable but have a positive ultrasound, a pericardial window with lavage and drainage should follow. We want to emphasize the importance of the pericardial lavage and drainage in the surgical management algorithm of these patients. Before this concept, all positive pericardial windows ended up in an open chest exploration. With the coming of the pericardial lavage and drainage procedure, the reported literature and our experience have shown that 25% of positive pericardial windows do not benefit and/or require further invasive procedures. However, in hemodynamically unstable patients, damage control surgery may still be required to control ongoing bleeding. For this purpose, we propose a surgical management algorithm that includes all of these essential clinical aspects in the care of these patients.

Resumen El manejo definitivo de los pacientes hemodinámicamente estables con heridas cardíacas penetrantes continúa siendo controversial con abordajes invasivos versus manejos conservadores. Estas posiciones contrarias se extienden hasta aquellos casos de pacientes hemodinámicamente inestables donde se ha descrito y considerado la cirugía de control de daños como un procedimiento útil y efectivo. El objetivo de este artículo es presentar la experiencia en el manejo quirúrgico de heridas cardíacas penetrantes con la creación de un algoritmo práctico que incluye los principios básicos del control de daños. Se recomienda que a todos los pacientes con heridas precordiales penetrantes se les debe realizar un ultrasonido torácico como componente integral de la evaluación inicial. Aquellos que presenten un ultrasonido torácico positivo y se encuentren hemodinámicamente estables se les debe realizar una ventana pericárdica con posterior lavado. Se ha demostrado que el 25% de las ventanas pericárdicas positivas no se benefician ni requieren de posteriores abordajes quirúrgicos invasivos. Antes de este concepto, todos los pacientes con ventana pericárdica positiva terminaban en una exploración abierta del tórax y del pericárdico. Los pacientes hemodinámicamente inestables requieren de una cirugía de control de daños para un adecuado y oportuno control del sangrado. Con este propósito, se propone un algoritmo de manejo quirúrgico que incluye todos estos aspectos esenciales en el abordaje de este grupo de pacientes.

The gap in operative exposure in trauma surgery: quantifying the benefits of an international rotation.

BACKGROUND: International rotations with hands-on experience are commonly cited as a potential supplement to the current experience of surgical trainees in trauma; however, quantification of this experience remains unclear. METHODS: A link to an online survey was distributed by electronic mail to physicians who rotated for any period of time at the Trauma Unit of the Groote-Shuur Hospital of the University of Cape Town from January 1, 2006, to December 2016. RESULTS: Of 160 participants, 75 (47%) completed the survey. A high proportion (45%) had performed less than 25 trauma-related surgical procedures during their previous training. Most (56%) performed ≥ 10 trauma laparotomies and sternotomies/thoracotomies during their rotation, whereas 43% performed ≥ 5 vascular procedures. The level of perceived confidence in managing trauma patients increased significantly from a median of 3/10 to 7/10 (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Rotations at large-volume trauma centers abroad offer the opportunity for a hands-on operative experience and may enhance the confidence of surgical trainees. Further standardization of these opportunities may result in a larger-scale participation of graduate residents and fellows.

An Update on Foley Catheter Balloon Tamponade for Penetrating Neck Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Foley catheter balloon tamponade (FCBT) for bleeding penetrating neck injuries (PNIs) is effective. This study aims to audit the technique and outcomes of FCBT. METHODS: Adult patients with PNIs requiring FCBT presenting to Groote Schuur Hospital (GSH) within a 22-month study period were prospectively captured on an approved electronic registry. Retrospective analysis included demographics, major injuries, investigations, management and outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 628 patients with PNI were treated at GSH. In 95 patients (15.2%), FCBT was utilised. The majority were men (98%) with an average age of 27.9 years. Most injuries were caused by stab wounds (90.5%). The majority of catheters (81.1%) were inserted prior to arrival at GSH. Computerised tomographic angiography (CTA) was done in 92.6% of patients, while eight patients (8.4%) required catheter-directed angiography. Six were performed for interventional endovascular management. Thirty-four arterial injuries were identified in 29 patients. Ongoing bleeding was noted in three patients, equating to a 97% success rate for haemorrhage control. Thirteen (13.7%) patients required neck exploration. Seventy-two (75.8%) patients without major arterial injury had removal of the catheter at 48-72 h. Two of these bled on catheter removal. A total of 36 complications were documented in 28 patients (29.5%). There was one death due to uncontrolled haemorrhage from the neck wound. CONCLUSION: This large series highlights the ease of use of FCBT with high rates of success at haemorrhage control (97%). Venous injuries and minor arterial injuries are definitively managed with this technique.

Penetrating Pharyngoesophageal Injury: Practice Patterns in the Era of Nonoperative Management - A National Trauma Data Bank Review from 2007 to 2011.

Introduction: Selective nonoperative management of neck injuries from penetrating mechanism has become an acceptable management strategy. We herein characterize current management strategies of cervical pharyngoesophageal injuries implemented by trauma surgeons in the United States. Methods: The National Trauma Data Bank datasets 2007-2011 were queried for penetrating pharyngeal and/or cervical esophageal injuries. Subjects surviving 24 hours or more were analyzed based on whether a surgical exploration was pursued and by gunshot versus stabbing mechanism. Results: In all, 1,256 patients were identified, representing 6% of all penetrating neck injuries during the study period. The majority (84%) were male, with a median age of 27 years. Injury severity was high (median score of 14). Compared to stabbing victims, gunshot patients were more likely to have associated cervical spine (24% vs. 1%, p < .01) and carotid artery injury (14% vs. 9%, p < .01). Neck exploration was performed in 49% of patients who survived at least 24 hours, with 90% occurring within the first day of admission. Of patients who underwent a delayed neck exploration, 35% required a tracheostomy and 41% required a feeding tube placement. The overall mortality was 4%. Nonoperative management was not associated with increased odds for death (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.55, p = .17). Conclusions: Nonoperative management of penetrating pharyngoesophageal injuries is commonly utilized with no effect on mortality.

Penetrating femoral artery injuries: an urban trauma centre experience.

AIM: This study reviews a single centre experience with penetrating femoral artery injuries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of all patients with femoral artery injuries admitted to the Trauma Centre at Groote Schuur Hospital from January 2002 to December 2012 were reviewed. These were analysed for demographics, injury mechanism, perioperative, and surgical management. Outcome was categorised by limb salvage. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty-eight (158) patients with femoral artery injuries were identified. There were 144 (91%) men and 14 women with a mean age of 28 years. Ninety-five percent (N = 150) sustained penetrating injuries. The superficial femoral artery (87%) was most commonly injured. The most common type of arterial injury was a laceration (39%) and transection (37%). Eighty-one (51%) patients had a primary repair, 53 (33%) patients had a vein interposition graft, and 16 patients (10%) had a prosthetic graft. There were 78 (51%) concomitant venous injuries, 11 were repaired, and 1 vein patch repair was performed (15.4%). There were 4 (2.5%) primary amputations and 10 (6.5%) secondary amputations. There were no deaths. Statistically significant risk factors for secondary amputation derived by univariate analysis were: ischaemia (p < 0.0001), neurological deficit due to ischemia (p < 0.001), temporary vascular shunting (p < 0.001), and the absence of a palpable pulse post-repair (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study has a primary and secondary amputation rate of 2.5 and 6.5%, respectively. There was greater than 90% limb salvage rate. The outcome of threatened limbs due to femoral artery injury is good, provided that there is no delay to surgery.

Selective nonoperative management of liver gunshot injuries.

PURPOSE: Nonoperative management (NOM) of gunshot liver injuries (GLI) is infrequently practiced. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of selective NOM of GLI. METHODS: A prospective, protocol-driven study, which included patients with GLI admitted to a level 1 trauma center, was conducted over a 52-month period. Stable patients without peritonism or sustained hypotension with right-sided thoracoabdominal (RTA) and right upper quadrant (RUQ), penetrating wounds with or without localized RUQ tenderness, underwent contrasted abdominal CT scan to determine the trajectory and organ injury. Patients with established liver and/or kidney injuries, without the evidence of hollow viscus injury, were observed with serial clinical examinations. Outcome parameters included the need for delayed laparotomy, complications, the length of hospital stay and survival. RESULTS: During the study period, 54 (28.3%) patients of a cohort of 191 patients with GLI were selected for NOM of hemodynamic stability, the absence of peritonism and CT imaging. The average Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were 7.841 and 25 (range 4-50), respectively. 21 (39%) patients had simple (Grades I and II) and 33 (61%) patients sustained complex (Grades III to V) liver injuries. Accompanying injuries included 12 (22.2%) kidney, 43 (79.6%) diaphragm, 20 (37.0%) pulmonary contusion, 38 (70.4%) hemothoraces, and 24 (44.4%) rib fractures. Three patients required delayed laparotomy resulting in an overall success of NOM of 94.4%. Complications included: liver abscess (1), biliary fistula (5), intrahepatic A-V fistula (1) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (3). The overall median hospital stay was 6 (IQR 4-11) days, with no deaths. CONCLUSION: The NOM of carefully selected patients with GLI is safe and associated with minimal morbidity.

Outcomes of selective nonoperative management of civilian abdominal gunshot wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Although mandatory laparotomy has been standard of care for patients with abdominal gunshot wounds (GSWs) for decades, this approach is associated with non-therapeutic operations, morbidity, and long hospital stays. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to summarize outcomes of selective nonoperative management (SNOM) of civilian abdominal GSWs. Methods: We searched electronic databases (March 1966-April 1, 2017) and reference lists of articles included in the systematic review for studies reporting outcomes of SNOM of civilian abdominal GSWs. We meta-analyzed the associated risks of SNOM-related failure (defined as laparotomy during hospital admission), mortality, and morbidity across included studies using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2 statistics and conducting tests of homogeneity. Results: Of 7155 citations identified, we included 41 studies [n = 22,847 patients with abdominal GSWs, of whom 6777 (29.7%) underwent SNOM]. The pooled risk of failure of SNOM in hemodynamically stable patients without a reduced level of consciousness or signs of peritonitis was 7.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.9-10.1%; I2 = 92.6%, homogeneity p < 0.001] while the pooled mortality associated with use of SNOM in this patient population was 0.4% (95% CI = 0.2-0.6%; I2 = 0%, homogeneity p > 0.99). In patients who failed SNOM, the pooled estimate of the risk of therapeutic laparotomy was 68.0% (95% CI = 58.3-77.7%; I2 = 91.5%; homogeneity p < 0.001). Risks of failure of SNOM were lowest in studies that evaluated patients with right thoracoabdomen (3.4%; 95% CI = 0-7.0%; I2 = 0%; homogeneity p = 0.45), flank (7.0%; 95% CI = 3.9-10.1%), and back (3.1%; 95% CI = 0-6.5%) GSWs and highest in those that evaluated patients with anterior abdomen (13.2%; 95% CI = 6.3-20.1%) GSWs. In patients who underwent mandatory abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT), the pooled risk of failure was 4.1% versus 8.3% in those who underwent selective CT (p = 0.08). The overall sample-size-weighted mean hospital length of stay among patients who underwent SNOM was 6 days versus 10 days if they failed SNOM or developed an in-hospital complication. Conclusions: SNOM of abdominal GSWs is safe when conducted in hemodynamically stable patients without a reduced level of consciousness or signs of peritonitis. Failure of SNOM may be lower in patients with GSWs to the back, flank, or right thoracoabdomen and be decreased by mandatory use of abdominopelvic CT scans.