The efficacy and safety of laparoscopy for blunt trauma remain controversial. This systemic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the usefulness of laparoscopy in blunt trauma. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to 23 February 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and overall proportions. Overall, 19 studies with a total of 1520 patients were included. All patients were hemodynamically stable. In the laparoscopy group, meta-analysis showed lesser blood loss (SMD −0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.51 to −0.05, I² = 62%) and shorter hospital stay (SMD −0.67, 95% CI −0.90 to −0.43, I² = 47%) compared with the laparotomy group. Pooled prevalence of missed injury (0.003 (95% CI 0 to 0.023), I² = 0%), nontherapeutic laparotomy (0.004 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.026), I² = 0%), and mortality (0.021 (95% CI 0.010 to 0.043), I² = 0%) were very low in blunt trauma. In subgroup analysis, recently published studies (2011–present) showed lesser conversion rate (0.115 (95% CI 0.067 to 0.190) vs. 0.391 (95% CI 0.247 to 0.556), test for subgroup difference: p < 0.01). This meta-analysis suggests that laparoscopy is a safe and feasible option in hemodynamic stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

Intra-abdominal hypertension can have severe consequences, including abdominal compartment syndrome, which can contribute to multi-organ failure. An increase in intra-abdominal hypertension is influenced by factors such as diminished abdominal wall compliance, increased intraluminal content, and certain systemic conditions. Regular measurement of intra-abdominal pressure is essential, and particular attention must be paid to patient positioning. Nonsurgical treatments, such as decompression of intraluminal content using a nasogastric tube, percutaneous drainage, and fluid balance optimization, play crucial roles. Additionally, point-of-care ultrasonography aids in the diagnosis and treatment of intra-abdominal hypertension. Emphasizing the importance of regular measurements, timely decompressive laparotomy is a definitive, but complex, treatment option. Balancing the urgency of surgical intervention against potential postoperative complications is challenging.

Background and Objectives: Traumatic duodenal injury is a rare disease with limited evidence. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors for postoperative leakage and outcomes of pyloric exclusion after duodenal grade 2 and 3 injury. Materials and Methods: We reviewed a prospectively collected trauma database for the period January 2004–December 2020. Patients with grade 2 and 3 traumatic duodenal injury were included. To identify the risk factors for postoperative leakage, we used a stepwise multivariable logistic regression model and a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic model. We constructed a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve to predict risk factors for postoperative leakage. Results: During the 17-year period, 179,887 trauma patients were admitted to a regional trauma center in Korea. Of these patients, 74 (0.04%) had duodenal injuries. A total of 49 consecutive patients had grade 2 and 3 traumatic duodenal injuries and underwent laparotomy. The incidence of postoperative leakage was 32.6% (16/49). Overall mortality was 18.4% (9/49). A stepwise multivariable logistic regression and LASSO logistic regression model showed that time from injury to initial operation was the sole statistically significant risk factor. The ROC curve at the optimal threshold of 15.77 h showed the following: area under ROC curve, 0.782; sensitivity, 68.8%; specificity, 87.9%; positive predictive value, 73.3%; and negative predictive value, 85.3%. There was no significant difference in outcomes between primary repair alone and pyloric exclusion. Conclusions: Time from injury to initial operation may be the sole significant risk factor for postoperative duodenal leakage. Pyloric exclusion may not be able to prevent postoperative leakage.

Background and Objectives: Angioembolization has emerged as an effective therapeutic approach for pelvic hemorrhages; however, its exact effect size concerning the level of embolized artery remains uncertain. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect size of embolization-related pelvic complications after nonselective angioembolization compared to that after selective angioembolization in patients with pelvic injury accompanying hemorrhage. Materials and Methods: Relevant articles were collected by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases until 24 June 2023. Meta-analyses were conducted using odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes. Quality assessment was conducted using the risk of bias tool in non-randomized studies of interventions. Results: Five studies examining 357 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Embolization-related pelvic complications did not significantly differ between patients with nonselective and selective angioembolization (OR 1.581, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.592 to 4.225, I² = 0%). However, in-hospital mortality was more likely to be higher in the nonselective group (OR 2.232, 95% CI 1.014 to 4.913, I² = 0%) than in the selective group. In the quality assessment, two studies were found to have a moderate risk of bias, whereas two studies exhibited a serious risk of bias. Conclusions: Despite the favorable outcomes observed with nonselective angioembolization concerning embolization-related pelvic complications, determining the exact effect sizes was limited owing to the significant risk of bias and heterogeneity. Nonetheless, the low incidence of ischemic pelvic complications appears to be a promising result.

Ha Jin Lim, M.D., Hyunseok Jang, M.D., Ph.D., Naa Lee, M.D., Euisung Jeong, M.D., Yunchul Park, M.D., Younggoun Jo, M.D., Ph.D., Jungchul Kim, M.D., Ph.D., Young Eun Lee, Ph.D., Hyun-Jung Choi, M.D., Ph.D., Seung-Jung Kee, M.D., Ph.D., Jong Hee Shin, M.D., Ph.D., and Myung Geun Shin, M.D., Ph.D.. Ann Lab Med 2024;44:74-81. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2024.44.1.74

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy for pediatric patients with abdominal trauma. Relevant articles were obtained by searching the MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases until 7 December 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes, standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcome measures, and overall proportion for single proportional outcomes. Nine studies examining 12,492 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed younger age (SMD −0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.52 to −0.42), lower injury severity score (SMD −0.62, 95% CI −0.67 to −0.57), shorter hospital stay (SMD −0.55, 95% CI −0.60 to −0.50), less complications (OR 0.375, 95% CI 0.309 to 0.455), and lower mortality rate (OR 0.055, 95% CI 0.0.28 to 0.109) in the laparoscopy group compared to the laparotomy group. The majority of patients were able to avoid laparotomy (0.816, 95% CI 0.800 to 0.833). There were no missed injuries during the laparoscopic procedures in seven eligible studies. Laparoscopy for stable pediatric patients showed favorable outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality. There were no missed injuries, and laparotomy could be avoided for the majority of patients.