Publication:
Can we omit surgery in patients with isolated free fluid following blunt abdominal injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorTatchakorn Promboonen_US
dc.contributor.authorChonlada Krutsrien_US
dc.contributor.authorPreeda Sumritpraditen_US
dc.contributor.authorPongsasit Singhatasen_US
dc.contributor.authorPanuwat Lertsitthichaien_US
dc.contributor.authorPanjapon Kitgrongpaibulen_US
dc.contributor.authorVarinthip Thongchaien_US
dc.contributor.authorPattawia Choikruaen_US
dc.contributor.authorNapaphat Phopromen_US
dc.contributor.otherRamathibodi Hospitalen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T09:25:24Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T09:25:24Z
dc.date.issued2021-05-01en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Management of isolated free fluid following blunt abdominal injury in hemodynamically stable patients is still controversial with respect to nonoperative management (NOM) versus immediate laparotomy. This meta-analysis was performed to identify significant intra-abdominal injuries that require therapeutic laparotomy, thus helping in decision-making during initial management. Method: We systematically reviewed the PubMed and SCOPUS databases from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome of interest was identification of significant intra-abdominal injuries requiring therapeutic laparotomy. We performed the meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Results: Eight studies involving 7763 patients were evaluated. Isolated free fluid was present in 722 (9.3%) patients. Their median age was 35.82 years, and their average Injury Severity Score was 17.1. The major mechanism of injury was motor vehicle accidents (31.2%). Of 722 patients, 490 underwent initial NOM and 232 underwent immediate laparotomy. The success rate of initial NOM was 98% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.959–1.002]. The failure rate of initial NOM was 7.4% (95% CI, 0.023–0.126). Significant intra-abdominal injuries were identified in 39.2% of patients (95% CI, 0.127–0.657). Most of the significant intra-abdominal organ injuries were mesenteric injury in 23% of patients (95% CI, −0.004–0.463) and bowel injury in 18.4% (95% CI, 0.098–0.271). A moderate to large amount of fluid on computed tomography and abdominal tenderness were associated with laparotomy (p = 0.000 and 0.040, respectively), but neither was a significant risk factor for therapeutic laparotomy or significant intra-abdominal injury. Conclusions: Isolated free fluid following blunt abdominal injury in hemodynamically stable patients does not mandate immediate or delayed laparotomy. Initial NOM can be considered with hemodynamic monitoring of early warning signs of sepsis (e.g., using the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), and serial abdominal examination might help to detect significant intra-abdominal injury requiring therapeutic laparotomy. In patients suspected to have injury after initial NOM and in patients who cannot cooperate, diagnostic laparoscopy will play an important role in minimally invasive diagnosis.en_US
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Surgery Open. Vol.32, (2021)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijso.2021.100339en_US
dc.identifier.issn24058572en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85105349686en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/78243
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85105349686&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleCan we omit surgery in patients with isolated free fluid following blunt abdominal injury? A systematic review and meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeReviewen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85105349686&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections