Outcomes of Nonoperative Management of Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Injury: A Retrospective Study

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The treatment of penetrating abdominal injuries has changed in recent years with more focus on "nonoperative management" (NOM) to avoid unnecessary laparotomies while identifying injuries early. Although the NOM approach is widely used for stab wounds, its effectiveness in managing abdominal gunshot wounds is controversial. NOM of penetrating abdominal injuries is becoming more dependent on hemodynamic stability and improved noninvasive radiological interventions. The role of NOM is significantly underreported and underestimated in developing countries, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected states such as Yemen. The present study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of NOM in penetrating abdominal trauma injury patients and identify factors associated with NOM failure in a low-resource setting. METHODS: A retrospective study from January 2021 to December 2022 including patients diagnosed with penetrating abdominal trauma at the General Military Hospital, Sana'a, Yemen, was conducted. Hemodynamically stable patients without peritonitis or clear indications for immediate laparotomy were candidates for NOM and were included in the study. Patients with blunt abdominal injuries, penetrating wounds outside the abdomen, particularly head injury, eviscerated structures, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage, or those pronounced dead on arrival were excluded. The primary outcome was the success and failure rate of NOM necessitating laparotomy. The secondary outcome was the factors associated with NOM failure. RESULTS: During the study, 256 patients with penetrating abdominal injury were admitted, with 222 (86.7%) undergoing immediate laparotomy and 34 (13.3%) treated with NOM. The mean age was 27.6±7.4 years. Bump explosions, mostly sharp objects (secondary blast injuries), were the main causes of injury (n=18, 52.9%). Other causes were low-velocity gunshot wounds, stab wound injuries, and shotgun injuries in 14 (41.2%), one (2.9%), and one (2.9%), respectively. The majority of patients (n=25, 55.9%) were admitted within 6-24 hours of the incident. The abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan revealed various injuries in all patients, including hemoperitoneum in 11 (32.4%), pneumoperitoneum in five (14.7%), liver injury in 15 (44.1%), foreign body attached to the wall colon in 23 (67.6%), kidney injury in two (5.9%), and splenic injury in one (2.9%). NOM was successful in 31 (91.2%) patients. NOM failed in three (8.8%). One patient was treated via the laparoscopic procedure, and two patients were treated with laparotomy procedures. Five (14.7%) cases required intensive care unit (ICU) admission, with no deaths or major complications. In univariate analysis, the presence of free intra-abdominal fluid (pneumoperitoneum) on the initial CT scan and the need for ICU admission were associated with NOM failure and were statistically significant (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings support that some penetrating abdominal trauma patients can benefit from NOM. The goal of preventing unnecessary laparotomies should be aligned with a comprehensive comprehension of the clinical signs and symptoms of NOM failure and the necessity for surgical intervention. Serial abdominal examinations remain the foundation of selected NOM; nevertheless, radiological and laboratory tests can be important tools in decision-making. In this study, free intra-abdominal fluid on the initial CT scan and the need for ICU admission were associated with NOM failure.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.