Non-operative Management in Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: IS it Feasible at a Level II Trauma Center?

Abstract

BackgroundThe recent mandate for surgical exploration for all penetrating abdominal trauma has been questioned. High-volume centers report good outcomes for non-operative treatment in penetrating trauma for hemodynamically stable patients without peritonitis and with tangential wounds. The applicability of this strategy in smaller hospitals is unknown. Study ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate non-operative management of penetrating abdominal trauma at a Level II trauma center. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all patients with penetrating abdominal trauma from 2006 through 2008. Demographic information, treatments, and outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics. ResultsOur sample consisted of 86 patients with penetrating abdominal trauma; 12 (14%) had documented peritoneal violation and were managed non-operatively. The average age was 30 years (range 21–39 years), with 50% African American, 33% Caucasian, and 17% Hispanic. Male patients accounted for 92%, and the average Injury Severity Score was 5.2 (range 1–13). Overall non-operative treatment failed in 3 patients (25%); one required drainage of a retrogastric abscess on hospital day 4, and another underwent gastric and diaphragm repair on hospital day 1. The third treatment failure did not require an operation but developed a biloma requiring percutaneous drainage. There were no other complications related to non-operative therapy and no mortalities. The average length of stay was 3.9 days; 83% of patients were discharged home. ConclusionsIn hemodynamically stable patients without peritonitis and documented isolated injuries to solid organs, non-operative management of penetrating abdominal trauma seems safe; however, it can delay diagnosis of hollow viscus injuries. Until further data emerge, extreme caution should be used in employing non-operative management for penetrating abdominal injuries at small trauma centers.