Authors

EAST Practice Management Guideline Committee

John J. Como, MD
Faran Bokhari, MD
William C. Chiu, MD
Therese M. Duane, MD
Michele R. Holevar, MD
Margaret A. Tandoh, MD

April 11, 2007

Study Group

Chairman

John J. Como, MD, MetroHealth Medical Center, Case School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH

Vice-Chairman

Faran Bokhari, MD, Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Rush Medical College, Chicago, IL

Committee Members

William C. Chiu, MD, R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
Therese M. Duane, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, VA
Michele R. Holevar, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Chicago Medical School, Chicago, IL
Margaret A. Tandoh, MD, Upstate Medical Center, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY

I. Statement of the problem

Until the late 19th century, penetrating abdominal trauma was managed expectantly, with high mortality rates.^[1] In World War I, operative management replaced expectant management and became the accepted standard for penetrating wounds to the abdomen.^[2] It has since been realized that not all penetrating abdominal wounds require operation. As early as 1960, Shaftan advocated “observant and expectant treatment” rather than mandatory laparotomy in the management of penetrating abdominal injury.^[3] This was reinforced in 1969 by Nance and Cohn for the management of abdominal stab wounds.^[2] Since that time, selective nonoperative management of stab wounds to the anterior abdomen has become common. Gunshot wounds (GSWs) to the abdomen, however, are still commonly treated with mandatory exploration. The reason for this is there is thought to be a high incidence of intra-abdominal injuries and a low rate of complications if laparotomy is negative.

Reports on the incidence of unnecessary laparotomy range from 23 to 53% for patients with stab wounds and 5.3 to 27% for patients with GSWs.^[4] Complications develop in 2.5 to 41% of all trauma patients undergoing unnecessary laparotomy, and small bowel obstruction, pneumothorax, ileus, wound infection, myocardial infarction, visceral injury, and even death have been reported secondary to unnecessary laparotomy.^[2][4] Unnecessary laparotomy may also lead to greater lengths of stay and increased cost.

Mandatory celiotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma results in a high rate of unnecessary operations. There is associated morbidity and increased cost. There is a risk of transmission of blood-borne diseases to healthcare providers. Complication rates from unnecessary laparotomy must, however, be weighed against the mortality and morbidity of a missed injury. The goal of the trauma surgeon is to avoid unnecessary laparotomy while minimizing missed injuries. The surgeon deciding whether or not a laparotomy for trauma is indicated must know the risks and benefits associated with either course of action.

II. Process

a. Identification of references

A computerized search of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health MEDLINE database was undertaken using the Entrez PubMed (www.pubmed.gov) interface. The primary search strategy was developed to retrieve English language articles focusing on nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma starting in 1990 and continuing through 2005; review articles, letters to the editor, editorials, other items of general commentary, and case reports were excluded from the search. These articles were then reviewed for relevance by the committee chair, and the final reference list of 51 citations was distributed to the remainder of the study group for review.

We would like to acknowledge Steven J. Grove, MA, MLS of the Brittingham Memorial Library at MetroHealth Medical Center for his assistance in this portion of the project.

b. Quality of the references

Articles were classified as Class I, II or III according to the following definitions:

Class I: Prospective, randomized clinical trials (1 reference).

Class II: Clinical studies in which data was collected prospectively or retrospective analyses based on clearly reliable data (26 references).

Class III: Studies based on retrospectively collected data (24 references).

Recommendations were classified as Level 1, 2, or 3 according to the following definitions:

Level 1: The recommendation is convincingly justifiable based on the available scientific information alone. This recommendation is usually based on Class I data, however, strong Class II evidence may form the basis for a level 1 recommendation, especially if the issue does not lend itself to testing in a randomized format. Conversely, low quality or contradictory Class I data may not be able to support a level 1 recommendation.

Level 2: The recommendation is reasonably justifiable by available scientific evidence and strongly supported by expert opinion. This recommendation is usually supported by Class II data or a preponderance of Class III evidence.

Level 3: The recommendation is supported by available data but adequate scientific evidence is lacking. This recommendation is generally supported by Class III data. This type of recommendation is useful for educational purposes and in guiding future clinical research.

III. Recommednations

A. Level 1

There is insufficient data to support a Level 1 recommendation on this topic.

B. Level 2

1. Patients who are hemodynamically unstable or who have diffuse abdominal tenderness after penetrating abdominal trauma should be taken emergently for laparotomy.
2. Patients with an unreliable clinical examination (i.e., severe head injury, spinal cord injury, severe intoxication, or need for sedation or intubation) should be explored or further investigation done to determine if there is intraperitoneal injury.
3. Others may be selected for initial observation. In these patients:
   1. Triple-contrast (oral, intravenous, and rectal contrast) abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) should be strongly considered as a diagnostic tool to facilitate initial management decisions as this test can accurately predict the need for laparotomy.
   2. Serial examinations should be performed, as physical examination is reliable in detecting significant injuries after penetrating trauma to the abdomen. Patients requiring delayed laparotomy will develop abdominal signs.
   3. If signs of peritonitis develop, laparotomy should be performed.
   4. If there is an unexplained drop in blood pressure or hematocrit, further investigation is warranted.

C. Level 3

1. The vast majority of patients with penetrating abdominal trauma managed nonoperatively may be discharged after twenty-four hours of observation in the presence of a reliable abdominal examination and minimal to no abdominal tenderness.
2. Patients with penetrating injury to the right upper quadrant of the abdomen with injury to the right lung, right diaphragm, and liver ay be safely observed in the presence of stable vital signs, reliable examination and minimal to no abdominal tenderness.
3. Angiography and investigation for and treatment of diaphragm injury may be necessary as adjuncts to initial nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma.
4. Mandatory exploration for all penetrating renal trauma is not necessary.

IV. Scientific foundations

Indications for laparotomy

Patients who are hemodynamically unstable or who have diffuse abdominal tenderness after penetrating abdominal trauma should be taken emergently for laparotomy. Patients with an unreliable clinical examination (i.e., severe head injury, spinal cord injury, severe intoxication, or need for sedation or intubation) should be explored or further investigation done to determine if there is intraperitoneal injury. If signs of peritonitis develop, laparotomy should be performed. If there is an unexplained drop in blood pressure or hematocrit, further investigation is warranted. These recommendations are reasonably justifiable by available scientific evidence is strongly supported by expert opinion; therefore a Level 2 recommendation is appropriate. In general, patients fitting the above profile were excluded from nonoperative management and were not included in the studies evaluated by this committee.

Physical examination

In patients selected for nonoperative management, serial examinations should be performed, as physical examination is reliable in detecting significant injuries after penetrating trauma to the abdomen. Patients requiring delayed laparotomy will develop abdominal signs. A number of Class II articles support this recommendation.

Demetriades and colleagues published a prospective series of 41 patients with minimal or equivocal abdominal signs after GSW to the abdomen managed nonoperatively.^[5] Seven required delayed laparotomy within 4 hours to 4 days (3 colon injuries, 3 small bowel injuries, 1 liver injury); of these, two developed wound infection, one with abdominal dehiscence. There was no mortality or serious morbidity. The authors concluded that carefully selected patients with abdominal GSW can be safely managed nonoperatively.

A prospective study on GSW to the anterior abdomen using observation if the patient was stable, without peritonitis, and without severe head or spinal cord injury was published by Demetriades et al in 1997.6 One hundred six patients were in this group, with 14 undergoing delayed operation (13 for increasing tenderness and one for continued bleeding) of which 5 were therapeutic. Four of these patients had colon injuries managed by primary repair. Only one of these had a subsequent complication: a psoas abscess that required percutaneous drainage. One patient was observed for 48 hours in violation of the protocol and developed abdominal compartment syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome. The sensitivity of the initial negative physical examination was 97.1%. The mean hospital stay in the group with nontherapeutic operations was 6.4 days, and the complication rate was 27.6%. Of the total of 309 patients in the series, 92 (29.8%) were successfully managed nonoperatively.

Velmahos and coworkers, in 1997, published a prospective series of 230 consecutive patients with GSW to the back.^[7] Patients with hemodynamic instability or peritonitis underwent urgent operation. Of the remaining 188 patients, 58 (31%) underwent laparotomy (56 therapeutic, 2 negative) and 130 (69%) were initially observed due to negative clinical exam. 4/130 (3%) underwent delayed laparotomy after developing abdominal tenderness; all of these laparotomies were nontherapeutic. The authors also note a diaphragm injury that presented with no clinical signs. The sensitivity and specificity of initial clinical exam in detecting significant intraabdominal injuries were 100% and 95% respectively.

In the same year, Velmahos et al reported 59 consecutive patients with GSW to the buttocks.^[8] Unstable patients underwent immediate laparotomy. Stable patients with peritoneal signs underwent surgery. Patients with gross hematuria or blood on rectal exam underwent cystography and/or rigid sigmoidoscopy. Patients without clinical signs of significant injury underwent "appropriate" diagnostic tests, including rigid sigmoidoscopy, and were admitted for serial clinical examinations. Nineteen (32.2%) underwent surgery based on clinical findings, with significant intraabdominal injuries in 17 (28.8%). The remaining 40 (67.8%) were successfully observed. There were no missed injuries or delays in diagnosis. Sensitivity and specificity of clinical exam for identifying significant intra-abdominal injury was 100% and 95.3% respectively.

A review of 37 patients with transpelvic GSW was published in 1998 by Velmahos and colleagues.^[9] Patients with peritoneal signs, hemodynamic instability, gross hematuria, or rectal bleeding underwent immediate operation. Eighteen were initially managed nonoperatively. Three of these subsequently underwent exploration for the development of abdominal tenderness. All 3 were nontherapeutic. The sensitivity of clinical examination was 100% in detecting the need for laparotomy.

A retrospective review of 792 patients with abdominal GSW treated with selective nonoperative management was published by Velmahos et al in 2001.^[10] During observation 80 (10%) patients developed symptoms and required a delayed laparotomy. Fifty-seven (72%) of laparotomies were therapeutic. Five (6.3%) suffered complications potentially related to the delay in laparotomy, which were managed successfully. Seven hundred twelve (90%) were successfully managed nonoperatively. If patients had been managed by routine laparotomy, the unnecessary laparotomy rate would have been 47% (39% for anterior and 74% for posterior abdominal GSW). Patients without surgery had significantly shorter hospital LOS and lower hospital charges.

Use of computed tomography

Triple-contrast (oral, intravenous, and rectal contrast) abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) should be strongly considered as a diagnostic tool to facilitate initial management decisions as this test can accurately predict the need for laparotomy. This recommendation is also supported by a number of Class II articles.

Himmelman et al found that a negative triple contrast CT has 100% sensitivity for retroperitoneal injury after penetrating trauma to the back and flank.^[11] Eighty-eight patients were enrolled prospectively. Five of nine high-risk scans had laparotomy, and two had injuries. Seventy-seven patients with non-high-risk scans were observed without complication.

Kirton and colleagues performed a registry review on back and flank stab wounds who were evaluated with CT with contrast enema.^[12] None of the 92 low-risk patients required surgery or had sequelae. Six of the 53 patients with high-risk scans had laparotomy (two due to CT findings and four due to evolving signs). CT predicted all surgical findings in all six.

A prospective study of 104 stable patients without peritonitis receiving triple-contrast CT after penetrating torso trauma was published by Shanmuganathan et al in 2001.^[13] A positive CT was defined as evidence of peritoneal penetration or injury to the retroperitoneal colon, major vessel, or urinary tract. Patients with a positive CT, except for patients with isolated liver injury or free fluid, underwent laparotomy. Nine patients with isolated hepatic injuries were successfully treated without laparotomy. Patients with a negative finding on CT were initially observed. Among patients with a negative CT, 67 (97%) of 69 were successfully observed. The negative predictive value of triple-contrast CT was 100% (69/69). The authors concluded that triple-contrast CT accurately predicts the need for laparotomy (97% accuracy) and excludes peritoneal violation in penetrating torso trauma.

A prospective study of 75 consecutive stable patients with penetrating injury to the torso (lower chest, abdomen or pelvis) without definite indication for laparotomy who underwent triple contrast CT interpreted by blinded radiologists was published by Chiu and coworkers in 2002. 14 In patients with a positive CT, 18 (69%) had laparotomy, two nontherapeutic and one negative. The remainder was successfully managed nonoperatively. Of the patients with negative CT, 47/49 (96%) were successfully managed nonoperatively and one received a negative laparotomy. The false-negative CT injury was a left diaphragm injury discovered at laparotomy. CT accurately predicted whether laparotomy was needed in 71/75 (95%) patients. The authors note that adjunctive angiography and investigation for diaphragm injury may be prudent.

Munera et al performed a prospective study of 47 patients with abdominal GSW who received a triple-contrast helical CT.^[15] Twenty patients had a negative CT scan. These patients were treated nonoperatively. One injury was missed at CT (a cecal wall contusion that was repaired). It was concluded that in stable patients with gunshot wounds to the abdomen in whom there is no indication for immediate surgery, triple-contrast helical CT can help reduce the number of cases of unnecessary or nontherapeutic laparotomy (accuracy of 96%).

Another prospective study of triple-contrast helical CT in 200 patients with penetrating torso trauma was published by Shanmuganathan et al in 2004.^[16] Two patients with negative CT findings failed to improve with observation and underwent therapeutic laparotomy. In one, an actively bleeding left upper quadrant mesenteric hematoma and a left diaphragm injury were found; in the other, a left diaphragm injury was found. Twenty-one of 23 patients with isolated liver injury had successful nonsurgical management. Angioembolization was performed on four of these patients. None of the six patients with renal injury required surgery. CT had 97% sensitivity (66 of 68 patients), 98% specificity (130 of 132 patients), and 98% accuracy (196 of 200 patients) for peritoneal violation. The authors concluded that triple-contrast helical CT accurately demonstrates peritoneal violation and visceral injury in patients with penetrating torso wounds. The accuracy of CT for diagnosis of left diaphragm injuries requires further study.

Morbidity of nontherapeutic laparotomy

Mandatory laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma detects some unexpected injuries earlier and more accurately, but results in a higher nontherapeutic laparotomy rate, longer hospital stays, and increased hospital costs. Nontherapeutic laparotomies for penetrating abdominal trauma carry morbidity. These statements are supported by Class I and Class II evidence.

A prospective series of 372 operations performed on 368 patients with penetrating injuries to the abdomen, chest, neck and extremities was reported by Demetriades and colleagues.^[17] There were 46 negative or non-therapeutic operations. Eleven percent of patients with nontherapeutic operations developed major complications due to anesthesia or operation (pancreatitis, aspiration pneumonia, wound infection, DVT, pneumonia). Hospital LOS was 4.1 days for those with uncomplicated nontherapeutic operations and 21.2 days for those with complications. The authors conclude that nontherapeutic operations for penetrating trauma carry a significant morbidity rate and they advocate a policy of selective conservatism.

Hasaniya and coworkers performed a retrospective study to look at complications of non-therapeutic laparotomies.^[18] Two hundred thirty of these were identified. The incidence of significant complications directly related to the anesthesia or operation was 8.2%. One patient with a major thoracic injury died secondary to complications of a nontherapeutic laparotomy. The average hospital stay for uncomplicated nontherapeutic operations was 5.1 days, and for patients with complications 11.9 days.

Renz and Feliciano, in 1995, reported a prospective case series of 254 patients with unnecessary laparotomies for trauma.^[4] Complications occurred in 41.3% of patients and included atelectasis (15.7%), postoperative hypertension that required medical treatment (11.0%), pleural effusion (9.8%), pneumothorax (5.1%), prolonged ileus (4.3%), pneumonia (3.9%), surgical wound infection (3.2%), small bowel obstruction (2.4%), urinary tract infection (1.9%), and others. The mortality rate for the entire series was 0.8% and was unrelated to unnecessary laparotomy.

In 1995, Leppaniemi et al reported a retrospective study of 172 patients undergoing mandatory explorative laparotomy for truncal stab wounds.^[19] It was concluded that mandatory laparotomy for truncal stab wounds leads to an unnecessary operation in about 40% of cases, with a 20% morbidity rate associated with the laparotomy itself.

In 1996, the same group published a prospective, randomized (not blinded) trial on the safety and cost-effectiveness of selective non-operative management compared to mandatory laparotomy in patients with abdominal stab wounds not requiring immediate laparotomy.^[20] Fifty-one patients not requiring immediate laparotomy for hemodynamic instability, generalized peritonitis, or evisceration were randomly assigned to mandatory laparotomy or expectant, nonoperative management. The morbidity rate was 19% following mandatory laparotomy and 8% after observation. Four patients (17%) managed nonoperatively required delayed laparotomy. Suture repair of colon injuries was performed 6 and 18 hours after the injury in two patients; one patient underwent laparotomy for hemorrhage 44 hours after the injury, and was found to have a liver laceration that was not actively bleeding, but 1.4 L of blood in the abdomen; and a fourth patient was discharged home but represented 52 days later with empyema and was found to have a missed diaphragm injury through which the stomach had partially herniated and perforated. About $2800 was saved for every patient who underwent successful nonoperative management. Mandatory laparotomy detects some unexpected organ injuries earlier and more accurately but results in a high non-therapeutic laparotomy rate.

In the same year, Renz and Feliciano performed a prospective case series and found that unnecessary laparotomies for trauma resulted in a significant length of stay.^[21] Two hundred fifty-four patients had unnecessary laparotomy for trauma from 1988-1991. The mean length of stay for 81 patients with negative laparotomies and no associated injuries was 4.7 days. The presence of a complication or an associated injury significantly prolonged the length of stay.

Duration of observation

Twenty-four hours of observation is adequate for the vast majority of patients with penetrating abdominal trauma managed nonoperatively. A number of observations and studies support this recommendation.

Alzamel and Cohn published a chart review of 650 asymptomatic patients with abdominal stab wounds who were admitted for serial examination.^[22] Fifteen of 650 left against medical advice within 6 hours of presentation. Sixty-eight of 635 underwent exploratory laparotomy. All patients who needed surgery were identified within 12 hours of presentation. Twenty-three (33%) underwent surgery within 2 hours; 26 (38%) between 2 to 4 hours; 9 (13%) between 4 & 6 hours; 9 (13%) between 6 & 10 hours; and 1 (1.4%) at 12 hours. The authors conclude that asymptomatic patients with abdominal stab wounds may be discharged after 12 hours of observation with little likelihood of missed injury.

Velmahos and coworkers, in their article about gunshot wounds to the buttocks, found that observation of patients for more than 24 hours was unnecessary if they are stable, are able to tolerate a regular diet, and complain of no symptoms.^[8] In an article on the nonoperative management of 1856 patients with abdominal GSW, Velmahos et al observed that of 80 patients who required delayed laparotomy, only one required it after 24 hours of observation, and this patient was a policy guideline violation, in that a patient with a GSW to the liver and right kidney with a falling hematocrit was transfused instead of being taken to surgery.^[10] In a subsequent study, again by Velmahos and colleagues, now using CT in addition to physical examination, it was found that laparotomy guided by CT findings was performed within an average of 4.5 hours and a maximum of 13 hours.^[23]

Ginzburg and colleagues published a retrospective study of 83 patients using triple contract computed tomography (CT) to rule out injury after a gunshot wound to abdomen or flank.^[24] CT scans were classified as positive, equivocal or negative. The negative studies (53) were observed for 23 hours, with a 100% true negative rate. After this, patients were either discharged home or transferred to other services for treatment of associated injuries. No patient with a negative CT had a missed injury using this protocol.

Visceral or omental evisceration

Visceral or omental evisceration through an abdominal stab wound in a patient with stable clinical signs and without evidence of peritonitis is a relative rather than absolute indication for exploratory laparotomy. This is supported by Class II and Class III evidence. We did not feel the data, however, was strong enough to support a recommendation on this topic.

McFarlane reported on a small series of patients (n=14) with anterior abdominal stab wounds and omental evisceration.^[25] The article does not state whether data was collected prospectively or retrospectively. There were no late complications or missed visceral injuries requiring laparotomy. The author concludes that omental evisceration through an abdominal stab wound in a patient with stable clinical signs and without evidence of peritonitis is not an absolute indication for exploratory laparotomy.

Arikan et al published a prospective, nonrandomized series of 52 hemodynamically stable patients with abdominal stab wounds and either visceral or omental evisceration, who were treated either with exploratory laparotomy or wound exploration/closure under local anesthesia.26 Patients with obviously perforated hollow viscera or peritonitis were excluded. Seven of 31 patients treated selectively required delayed operation, of which 2 (6.5%) were negative. Of the 21 patients treated with a routine laparotomy, 7 (33%) were nontherapeutic. Of the routine laparotomy group, 19% (4/21) had complications, but only 1 patient with a nontherapeutic laparotomy had a complication (bleeding through the suture line controlled by simple suturing). The complication rate in the selective group was 3.2% (one case of small bowel obstruction managed nonoperatively). The mean length of stay was 137 hours in the routine exploration group vs. 81 hours in the selective group (p < 0.001). The authors concluded that selective observation is safe and superior to routine laparotomy for the treatment of penetrating abdominal stab wounds with omental evisceration.

Right upper quadrant penetrating injury

Patients with penetrating injury to the right upper quadrant of the abdomen with injury to the right lung, right diaphragm, and liver may be safely observed in the presence of stable vital signs, reliable examination and minimal to no abdominal tenderness. This is supported by Class II and Class III evidence, but the numbers of patients are small.

Chmielewski and colleagues reported prospectively on 12 patients with a single GSW to the right upper quadrant, stable vital signs, reliable examination, and minimal or no abdominal tenderness.^[27] All were successfully observed. One nontherapeutic laparotomy was done secondary to abdominal tenderness.

Demetriades and coworkers performed a retrospective review of GSW to the liver. Sixteen stable patients were selected for nonoperative management.^[28] Five patients in the observed group underwent delayed laparotomy for peritonitis (four patients with liver injuries) and abdominal compartment syndrome (one patient who had received six units of blood in violation of the recommended policy). Except for a missed right diaphragm injury, there were no missed injuries in the 16 patients. One patient in the group with delayed laparotomy had multiple complications from abdominal compartment syndrome, and one patient in the nonoperative group developed a biloma, which was successfully drained percutaneously.

In 1994 Renz and Feliciano also reported on this subject.^[29] A prospective study on stable patients with GSW to the right thoracoabdomen was performed. Thirteen patients were identified. All patients had a right hemothorax treated with a chest tube. Complications included atelectasis (n=four), a small persistent pneumothorax (n=two), and pneumonia (n=one). It was concluded that stable patients without peritonitis after sustaining a GSW to the right thoracoabdomen can be managed nonsurgically with a low incidence of minor intrathoracic complications.

Investigation for diaphragm injury

Investigation for diaphragm injury may be necessary as an adjunct to initial nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma. A number of the aforementioned papers report missed diaphragm injuries.^{[7][14][16][28]} Other investigative modes, such as laparoscopy, may be necessary to rule out diaphragmatic injuries in appropriate patients.^[30][31] The discussion of operative procedures, such as laparoscopy, is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Angiography

Angiography may be necessary as an adjunct to initial nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma. Only a few reports have described the use of angiography in this setting.^[16][32] Velmahos in 1999 described 40 patients undergoing angiography after penetrating abdominal trauma.^[32] Six of these patients had angiography performed during nonoperative management; the rest had this done as an adjunct to surgery. Three of the six patients managed nonoperatively had successful angioembolization: one liver injury and two renal injuries. Shanmuganathan reported four patients with liver injuries who were managed with angioembolization but not with operation.^[16] Further study is needed on the use of angiography and angioembolization in this patient population.

Penetrating renal trauma

Mandatory exploration for all penetrating renal trauma is not necessary. Heyns and Vollenhoven performed a retrospective review of 95 patients with renal stab wounds.^[33] Patients with stab wounds and hematuria were selected for surgical exploration if they had signs of severe blood loss, an associated intra-abdominal laceration, or a major abnormality on an intravenous urogram. Sixty patients were in the nonoperative management group, and 35 were in the operative group. Only 4 patients underwent nontherapeutic laparotomy. Complications, however, developed in 12 of the 60 patients (20%) in the nonoperative group and consisted mainly of secondary hemorrhage caused by an arteriovenous fistula or pseudoaneurysm. Management consisted of embolization in 6, nephrectomy in 2, heminephrectomy in 1, open ligation of a fistula in 1, and spontaneous resolution in 2. The authors concluded by stating that certain groups should be more aggressively selected for surgery, and that angioembolization may be a useful adjunct to nonoperative management.

Velmahos and colleagues reviewed the records of 52 consecutive patients with renal GSW.^[34] Renal injuries were explored only if they involved the hilum or were accompanied by signs of continued bleeding. Thirty-two patients underwent renal exploration and 17 of them required nephrectomy. In the remaining 20 patients, renal exploration was successfully avoided. No kidneys were lost unnecessarily as a result of this policy. One renal complication was identified in a patient managed nonoperatively. A patient developed hematuria one month after injury. CT revealed lack of upper pole perfusion on the injured side. The patient underwent a successful partial nephrectomy.

Diagnostic peritoneal lavage

There are a number of articles that have investigated diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) as a means to assess the need for surgery after penetrating abdominal trauma.^[35–41] There is large variability in the criteria for a positive study. Most of the studies regarding DPL are from the early to mid 1990s, with very few recent studies. DPL seems to have been supplanted by other diagnostic modalities, such as CT. Because of these factors, we did not feel we could make any recommendations regarding its use in this patient population.

Ultrasound

There are few papers on the use of ultrasound (US) in the nonoperative management of patients with penetrating abdominal trauma. Only one addresses the use of Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma (FAST), and the conclusion is that additional diagnostic studies need to be performed in the face of a negative FAST to rule out occult injury.^[42] Of the two other studies investigating US, one described radiologist-interpreted US and the other described US to evaluate penetration of the abdominal wall.^[43–44] There is not enough data to make a recommendation about the use of US in this patient population.

Local wound exploration

Although no studies address the issue of local wound exploration (LWE) in patients with abdominal stab wounds during the time period covered in this review, this technique was used in a number of series to rule out penetration of the anterior fascia.^[40][41][45] Patients with abdominal stab wounds may have intraabdominal injury ruled out by a LWE demonstrating that the anterior abdominal fascia has not been penetrated. If there is no other reason for hospital admission, these patients may then be sent home.

Applicability

Prudent judgment should be exercised in deciding to apply nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma in a particular institution, as the above recommendations are generally from large academic hospitals with in-house senior level clinicians with extensive experience in trauma, in which careful observation and close monitoring are possible. It may not be applicable to medical centers with fewer trauma resources. These patients need to be examined frequently, preferably by the same surgeon. Pain medications should be given with caution, if at all. If a patient should develop abdominal pain or hemodynamic instability, nonoperative management should be abandoned and the patient taken to surgery emergently.

V. Future investigations

Prospective, randomized trials would be useful in investigating this topic further, but are unlikely to be practical since many patients would be subjected to unnecessary laparotomies for the purposes of the research. The role of CT in identifying diaphragmatic injuries needs to be investigated further. Although there is no debate about the necessity of repairing injuries to the left diaphragm, further study is required in deciding the necessity of repairing right-sided tears due to penetrating trauma. The role of interventional radiology in the nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma needs to be elucidated further.

VI. References

1. Loria FL. Historical aspects of penetrating wounds of the abdomen. Int Abstracts Surg 1948;87:521–49.
2. Nance FC, Cohn I Jr. Surgical management in the management of stab wounds of the abdomen: a retrospective and prospective analysis based on a study of 600 stabbed patients. Ann Surg 1969;170:569–80.
3. Shaftan GW. Indications for operation in abdominal trauma. Am J Surg 1960;99:657–64.
4. Renz BM, Feliciano DV. Unnecessary laparotomies for trauma: a prospective study of morbidity. J Trauma 1995;38:350–6.
5. Demetriades D, Charalambides D, Lakhoo, et al. Gunshot wound of the abdomen: role of selective conservative management. Br J Surg 1991;78:220–2.
6. Demetriades D, Velmahos G, Cornwall E 3rd, et al. Selective nonoperative management of gunshot wounds of the anterior abdomen. Arch Surg 1997;132:178–83.
7. Velmahos GC, Demetriades D, Faianini E, et al. A selective approach to the management of gunshot wounds to the back. Am J Surg 1997;174:342–6.
8. Velmahos GC, Demetriades D, Cornwell EE, et al. Gunshot wounds to the buttocks: predicting the need for operation. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:307–11.
9. Velmahos GC, Demetriades D, Cornwell EE 3rd, et al. Transpelvic gunshot wounds: routine laparotomy or selective management? World J Surg 1998;22:1034–8.
10. Velmahos GC, Demetriades D, Toutouzas KG, et al. Selective nonoperative management in 1,856 patients with abdominal gunshot wounds: should routine laparotomy still be the standard of care? Ann Surg 2001;234:395–403.
11. Himmelman RG, Martin M, Gilkey S, et al. Triple contrast CT scans in penetrating back and flank trauma. J Trauma 1991;31:852–5.
12. Kirton OC, Wint D, Thrasher B, et al. Stab wounds to the back and flank in the hemodynamically stable patient: a decision algorithm based on contrast-enhanced computed tomography with colonic opacification. Am J Surg 1997;173:189–93.
13. Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Chiu WC, et al. Triple-contrast helical CT in penetrating torso trauma: a prospective study to determine peritoneal violation and the need for laparotomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:1247–56.
14. Chiu WC, Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, et al. Determining the need for laparotomy in penetrating torso trauma: a prospective study using triple-contrast enhanced abdominopelvic computed tomography. J Trauma 2001;51:860–9.
15. Munera F, Morales C, Soto JA, et al. Gunshot wounds of the abdomen: evaluation of stable patients with triple-contrast helical CT. Radiology 2004;231:399–405.
16. Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Chiu WC, et al. Penetrating torso trauma: triple-contrast helical CT in peritoneal violation and organ injury—a prospective study in 200 patients. Radiology 2004;231:775–84.
17. Demetriades D, Vandenbossche P, Ritz M, et al. Non-therapeutic operations for penetrating trauma: early morbidity and mortality. Br J Surg 1993;80:860–1.
18. Hasaniya N, Demetriades D, Stephens A, et al. Early morbidity and mortality of non-therapeutic operations for penetrating trauma. Am Surg 1994;60:744–7.
19. Leppaniemi A, Salo J, Haapiainen R. Complications of negative laparotomy for truncal stab wounds. J Trauma 1995;38:54–8.
20. Leppaniemi AK, Haapiainen RK. Selective nonoperative management of abdominal stab wounds: prospective, randomized study. World J Surg 1996;20:1101–5.
21. Renz BM, Feliciano DV. The length of hospital stay after an unnecessary laparotomy for trauma: a prospective study. J Trauma 1996;40:187–90.
22. Alzamel HA, Cohn SM. When is it safe to discharge asymptomatic patients with abdominal stab wounds? J Trauma 2005;58:523–5.
23. Velmahos GC, Constantinou C, Tillou A, et al. Abdominal computed tomographic scan for patients with gunshot wounds to the abdomen selected for nonoperative management. J Trauma 2005;59:1155–61.
24. Ginzburg E, Carrillo EH, Kopelman T, et al. The role of computed tomography in selective management of gunshot wounds to the abdomen and flank. J Trauma 1998;45:1005–9.
25. McFarlane ME. Non-operative management of stab wounds to the abdomen with omental evisceration. J R Coll Surg Einb 1996;41:239–40.
26. Arikan S, Kocakusak A,Yucel AF, et al. A prospective comparison of the selective observation and routine exploration methods for penetrating abdominal stab wounds with organ or omentum evisceration. J Trauma 2005;58:526–32.
27. Chmielewski GW, Nicholas JM, Dulchavsky SA, et al. Nonoperative management of gunshot wounds of the abdomen. Am Surg 1995;61:665–8.
28. Demetriades D, Gomez H, Chahwan S, et al. Gunshot injuries to the liver: the role of selective nonoperative management. J Am Coll Surg 1999;188:343–8.
29. Renz BM, Feliciano DV. Gunshot wounds of the right thoracoabdomen: a prospective study of nonoperative management. J Trauma 1994;37:737–44.
30. Friese RS, Coln CE, Gentilello LM. Laparoscopy is sufficient to exclude occult diaphragm injury after penetrating abdominal trauma. J Trauma 2005 58:789–92.
31. McQuay N Jr, Britt LD. Laparoscopy in the evaluation of penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma. Am Surg 2003;69:788–91.
32. Velmahos GC, Demetriades D, Chahwan S, et al. Angiographic embolization for arrest of bleeding after penetrating trauma to the abdomen. Am J Surg 1999;178:367–73.
33. Heyns CF, Van Vollenhoven P. Selective surgical management of renal stab wounds. Br J Urol 1992;69:351–7.
34. Velmahos GC, Demetriades D, Cornwell EE 3rd, et al. Selective management of renal gunshot wounds. Br J Surg 1998;85:1121–4.
35. Boyle EM Jr, Maier RV, Salazar JD, et al. Diagnosis of injuries after stab wounds to the flank and back. J Trauma 1997;42:260–5.
36. Chihombori A, Hoover EL, Phillips T, et al. Role of diagnostic techniques in the initial evaluation of stab wounds to the anterior abdomen, back, and flank. J Natl Med Assoc 1991;83:137–40.
37. Gonzalez RP, Turk B, Falimirski, et al. Abdominal stab wounds: diagnostic peritoneal lavage criteria for emergency room discharge. J Trauma 2001;51:939–43.
38. Keleman JJ 3rd, Martin RR, Obney JA, et al. Evaluation of diagnostic peritoneal lavage in stable patients with gunshot wounds to the abdomen. Arch Surg 1997;132:909–13.
39. Nagy KK, Krosner SM, Joseph KT, et al. A method of determining peritoneal penetration in gunshot wounds to the abdomen. J Trauma 1997;43:242–6.
40. Rosemurgy AS 2nd, Albrink MH, Olson SM, et al. Abdominal stab wound protocol: prospective study documents applicability for widespread use. Am Surg 1995;61:112–6.
41. Taviloglu K, Gunay K, Ertekin C, et al. Abdominal stab wounds: the role of selective management. Eur J Surg 1998;164:17–21.
42. Udobi KF, Rodriguez A, Chiu WC, et al. Role of ultrasonography in penetrating abdominal trauma: a prospective clinical study. J Trauma 2001;50:475–9.
43. Bokhari F, Nagy K, Roberts R, et al. The ultrasound screen for penetrating truncal trauma. Am Surg 2004;70:316–21.
44. Soto JA, Morales C, Munera F, et al. Penetrating stab wounds to the abdomen: use of serial US and contrast-enhanced CT in stable patients. Radiology 2001;220:365–71.
45. Conrad MF, Patton JH Jr, Parikshak M, et al. Selective management of penetrating truncal injuries: is emergency department discharge a reasonable goal? Am Surg 2003;69:266–73.

Table