A laparoscopic approach is suggested with the highest grade of recommendation for acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcers, acute appendicitis, gynaecological disorders, and non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP). To date, the main qualities of laparoscopy for these acute surgical scenarios are clearly stated: quicker surgery, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. For the remaining surgical emergencies, as well as for abdominal trauma, the role of laparoscopy is still a matter of debate. Patients might benefit from a laparoscopic approach only if performed by experienced teams and surgeons which guarantee a high standard of care. More precisely, laparoscopy can limit damage to the tissue and could be effective for the reduction of the overall amount of cell debris, which is a result of the intensity with which the immune system reacts to the injury and the following symptomatology. In fact, these fragments act as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). DAMPs, as well as pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), are recognised by both surface and intracellular receptors of the immune cells and activate the cascade which, in critically ill surgical patients, is responsible for a deranged response. This may result in the development of progressive and multiple organ dysfunctions, manifesting with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), coagulopathy, liver dysfunction and renal failure. In conclusion, none of the emergency surgical scenarios preclude laparoscopy, provided that the surgical tactic could ensure sufficient cleaning of the abdomen in addition to resolving the initial tissue damage caused by the “trauma”.

Liver involvement after abdominal blunt trauma must be expected, and in up to 30% of cases, spleen, kidney, and pancreas injuries may coexist. Whenever hemodynamics conditions do not contraindicate the overcoming of the ancient dogma according to which exploratory laparotomy should be performed after every major abdominal trauma, a CT scan has to clarify the liver lesions so as to determine the optimal management strategy. Except for complete vascular avulsion, no liver trauma grade precludes nonoperative management. Every attempt to treat the injured liver by avoiding a strong surgical approach may be considered. Each time, a nonoperative management (NOM) consisting of a basic “wait and see” attitude combined with systemic support and blood replacement are inadequate. Embolization should be considered to stop the bleeding. Percutaneous drainage of collections, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with papilla sphincterotomy or stent placement and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) may avoid, or at least delay, surgical reconstruction or resection until systemic and hepatic inflammatory remodeling are resolved. The pathophysiological principle sustaining these leanings is based on the opportunity to limit the further release of cell debris fragments acting as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) and the following stress response associated with the consequent immune suppression after trauma. The main goal will be a faster recovery combined with limited cell death of the liver through the ischemic events that may directly follow the trauma, exacerbated by hemostatic procedures and surgery, in order to reduce the gross distortion of a regenerated liver.

The history of staged laparotomy, the basic idea behind the so called “Damage Control Surgery (DCS)” attitude, leans on the experience developed during the treatment of major hepatic trauma that was sustained by Pringle’s pioneering attempts to achieve hemostasis on liver wounds via packing in 1908