Citations
In South Korea, most patients who visit trauma centers with abdominal injuries have blunt trauma, and penetrating injuries are relatively rare. In extremely rare cases, some patients are admitted with a long object penetrating their abdomen, and these injuries are referred to as abdominal impalement injuries. Most cases of impalement injuries lead to fatal bleeding, and patients often die at the scene of the accident. However, patients who survive until reaching the hospital can have a good prognosis with optimal treatment. A 68-year-old female patient was admitted to the trauma center with a 4-cm-thick tree branch impaling her abdomen. The patient was transported by a medical helicopter and had stable vital signs at admission. The branch sticking out of the abdomen was quite long; thus, we carefully cut the branch with an electric saw to perform computed tomography (CT). CT revealed no signs of major blood vessel injury, but intestinal perforation was observed. During laparotomy, the tree branch was removed after confirming that there were no vascular injuries, and enterostomy was performed because of extensive intestinal injury. After treating other injuries, the patient was discharged without any complications except colostomy. Abdominal impalement injuries are treated using various approaches depending on the injury mechanism and injured region. However, the most important consideration is that the impaled object should not be removed during transportation and resuscitation. Instead, it should only be removed after checking for injuries to blood vessels during laparotomy in an environment where injury control is possible.
Negative laparotomy in patients with abdominal penetrating injuries (APIs) is associated with deleterious outcomes and unnecessary expense; however, the indications for laparotomy in hemodynamically stable patients with ambiguous computed tomography (CT) findings remain unclear. This study aimed to identify the factors associated with negative laparotomy. findings
Data of patients who underwent laparotomy for APIs between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who presented with definite indications for laparotomy were excluded. The patients were dichotomized into negative and positive laparotomy groups, and the baseline characteristics, laboratory test results, and CT findings were compared between the groups.
Of 55 patients with ambiguous CT findings, 38 and 17 patients were assigned to the negative and positive laparotomy groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the baseline characteristics or the nature of the ambiguous CT findings. However, the laboratory test results showed that there was a difference in the percentage of neutrophils between the groups (negative: 55.6% [range 47.4–66.1%] vs. positive: 79.8% [range 77.6–88.2%],
Diagnostic factors definitively indicative of laparotomy were not identified, although the percentage of neutrophils might be helpful. However, routine laparotomy in patients with peritoneal injuries could result in instances of negative laparotomy.