CE: ; ANNSURG-D-14-01712; Total nos of Pages: 1;

ANNSURG-D-14-01712

LETTER TO The Brave Challenge of NOM for Abdominal GSW Trauma and the Role of Laparoscopy As an Alternative to CT Scan To the Editor: e are amazed and we all would like to congratulate with Navsaria et al for sharing their tremendous experience in the treatment of penetrating trauma and in the challenging nonoperative management of patients with abdominal gunshot wound (GSW) injuries.1 The South African trauma surgeons present an impressive series of 1106 patients with abdominal GSW seen in 51/2 years (meaning almost 17 patients/month). The aim of the study was to assess feasibility and failure rate of nonoperative management for patients with abdominal GSW and no hard signs and intact neurology. Patients deemed safe for NOM were either clinically examined or investigated with contrastenhanced CT. Further aims were the incidence of unnecessary laparotomies in both operative and NOM groups, the morbidity and mortality associated with NOM failure and/or with a delayed laparotomy, and finally the role of CT in evaluating patients candidates for NOM or during their observation. Most of us have worked in trauma centers around the globe and have personally experienced the differences between highvolume centers with limited resources and low-volume centers with good resources. We feel we can provide both sides’ view and would like to highlight a few differences with our esteemed South African colleagues. We doubt that the excellent results achieved by the South African Trauma Center would be easily reproducible in less busy settings around the world (particularly in Europe, Canada, Australia, and eastern Asia), and even in some regions of USA or in many other places where GSW are less common. The achievement of highly successful results in nonoperative management of GSW, with selective use of CT scan and low complication rate, seems to be feasible only in centers having highly specific expertise. These differences in practice were recently highlighted by several authors.2 –4 In other words, it is reasonable that in Cape Town, receiving 17 cases of abdominal

W

Disclosure: No sources of funding have been received related to this investigation. No potential competing interests exist for all authors. Copyright ß 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN: 0003-4932/14/26105-0821 DOI: DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001301

THE

EDITOR

GSW/month, on top of all other cases of SW and other penetrating or blunt trauma, and acute care surgery cases, the resident staff is not only comfortable but is somehow pushed to attempt NOM in those patients that are stable and nonperitonitic (imagine how it is being on call in a busy summer night in South Africa!). Nonetheless, in most of the other centers, the same approach may not be so easily applicable for a number of reasons. First of all, the junior or resident staff may have hardly seen very few cases of abdominal GSW and may feel safer to surgically explore these patients, rather than admit them in the ward for overnight observation, even more if an advanced imaging investigation by abdominal CT scan has not been done. Therefore, in centers where the load is substantially less (as in most European and Australian centers), CT scan is standard of care for all patients without hard signs and the threshold for an exploratory laparotomy is usually very low. Last but not least, we must say that the medico-legal issues in Europe, Australia, and North America are probably much different from South Africa, again this reason contributing to make NOM a ‘‘brave challenge.’’ Finally, from my experience in emergency laparoscopy for Acute Care Surgery5 and Trauma,6 I would like to ask Navsaria et al if a diagnostic (and eventually therapeutic) laparoscopy may have played a role in assessing and managing the patients with abdominal GSW who have started NOM, or at least in the stable patients with equivocal peritoneal signs. We feel that diagnostic laparoscopy may be a valid alternative to CT and therefore may allow avoidance of ‘‘unnecessary CT scan’’ in selected patients, thus making it easier to follow-up the patients in the ward with less anxiety and possibly discharge earlier a significant proportion of patients. We assume that not all NOM patients from this series from Navsaria et al were doing clearly well and/or able to perfectly tolerate oral feeding after just 24 hours and/or could be discharged early. Therefore, what would you do for patients who seem to be clinically ‘‘borderline,’’ for those with equivocal signs and those who just ‘‘do not look right’’ after 24 to 48 hours? Diagnostic laparoscopy may easily be a valuable diagnostic tool with even better diagnostic accuracy than CT and perhaps potentially therapeutic, if in experienced hands. In conclusion, we feel that diagnostic laparoscopy may be a better alternative to CT or to exploratory laparotomy in:  clinically not assessable patients;  patients with equivocal peritoneal signs;  patients, who despite a reassuring CT remain clinically ‘‘borderline’’ or those ‘‘not looking right’’ after 24 to 48 hours.

Annals of Surgery  Volume XX, Number X, Month 2015

We realize the busy background and the logistic constraints in Cape Town, but we wholeheartedly believe that laparoscopy should be included in the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm.6– 7 Salomone Di Saverio, MD Andrea Biscardi, MD Gregorio Tugnoli, MD Trauma Surgery Unit Department of Emergency and Surgery Maggiore Hospital Bologna Local Health District Bologna, Italy [email protected] Carlo Coniglio, MD Giovanni Gordini, MD, PhD Trauma ICU, Trauma Center Department of Emergency Maggiore Hospital Bologna Local Health District Bologna, Italy Cino Bendinelli, MD Trauma Service, Department of Surgery John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle NSW, Australia

REFERENCES 1. Navsaria PH, Nicol AJ, Edu S, et al. Selective nonoperative management in 1106 patients with abdominal gunshot wounds: conclusions on safety, efficacy, and the role of selective CT imaging in a prospective single-center study. Ann Surg. 2014;261:760–764. 2. Inaba K, Branco BC, Moe D, et al. Prospective evaluation of selective nonoperative management of torso gunshot wounds: when is it safe to discharge? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72:884– 891. 3. Jansen JO, Inaba K, Resnick S, et al. Selective nonoperative management of abdominal gunshot wounds: survey of practice. Injury. 2013;44:639– 644. 4. Hsee L, Civil I. Management of low-velocity, nongunshot-wound penetrating abdominal injury: have we moved with the times? N Z Med J. 2008;121: 26–31. 5. Di Saverio S. Emergency laparoscopy: a new emerging discipline for treating abdominal emergencies attempting to minimize costs and invasiveness and maximize outcomes and patients’ comfort. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77: 338–350. 6. A Rare Indication for Laparoscopic Splenectomy for Trauma: Penetrating Abdominal Stabwound in Left Upper Quadrant with Splenic Arterial Blush Di Saverio S et al. American College of Surgeons 2014, Video Session VE24. http://sweb2.facs.org/ cc_program_planner/Detail_Session_2014.cfm? CCYEAR/2014&SESSION/VE24&GROUP/VE Accessed September 20, 2014. 7. Ahmed N, Whelan J, Brownlee J, et al. The contribution of laparoscopy in evaluation of penetrating abdominal wounds. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201: 213–216.

www.annalsofsurgery.com | 1

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

The Brave Challenge of NOM for Abdominal GSW Trauma and the Role of Laparoscopy As an Alternative to CT Scan.

The Brave Challenge of NOM for Abdominal GSW Trauma and the Role of Laparoscopy As an Alternative to CT Scan. - PDF Download Free
66KB Sizes 1 Downloads 10 Views