ReviewSelective non-operative management of civilian gunshot wounds to the abdomen: A systematic review of the evidence
Introduction
The surgical management of gunshot wounds (GSW) to the abdomen has for many years been mandatory laparotomy [1], [2], whereas more recently blunt trauma and stab wounds have been successfully managed non-operatively in selected patients [3], [4], [5], [6]. Such a policy of selective non-operative management (SNOM) significantly reduces the rates of negative or non-therapeutic laparotomy and reduces patient morbidity, length of stay and cost [7], [8], [9].
Potential candidates for SNOM after penetrating abdominal injury must be haemodynamically stable and without peritonitis on examination [9], [10]. They should be routinely investigated with contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans to identify intra-abdominal injury. CT evidence of hollow viscus injury mandates laparotomy but solid organ injury in the stable patient may not necessitate surgery [11], [12], [13]. SNOM is not ‘doing nothing’ and is an active process in which a patient is serially and regularly assessed by an experienced surgeon, preferably the same one, to detect changes in the abdominal examination. Any other injury that precludes serial examination such as a decreased conscious level from drugs, drink or head injury, or another indication for surgery such as extremity trauma should also mandate laparotomy in the presence of penetrating abdominal injury [14], [15].
GSWs and other ballistic injuries to the abdomen are perceived to be less amenable to non-operative management as the energy transfer involved is usually far greater than in stabbings and the likelihood of significant intra-abdominal injury much higher [16]. Studies of surgery for civilian abdominal GSW describe rates of non-therapeutic laparotomy of up to 25%, suggesting that NOM could be successfully and usefully pursued in this group [14], [17].
Over the last two decades a number of studies looking at SNOM of abdominal GSW have been published and demonstrate that it is a viable technique in selected patients. This article reviews the evidence regarding SNOM of civilian GSW to the abdomen.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
An electronic search was performed of the Medline database covering the period 1990–Oct 2012 using the terms “abdominal gunshot wounds” and “conservative management” and the MeSH headings: “gunshot wounds”, “non-operative management”, “conservative management” and “ballistic wounds”. The search was limited to English language publications and human subjects. All titles and abstracts were reviewed, and appropriate papers further assessed. The reference sections of all relevant papers deemed
Results
Twenty-two studies were identified that fitted the inclusion criteria, comprising 18,602 patients with abdominal gunshot wounds (Table 1).
The largest group of patients by far was that provided by Nabeel Zafar et al. [34]. Their study analysed data from more than 12,000 patients from the North American National Trauma Database between 2002 and 2008 and is likely to include duplicate patients from other American studies published during or after this period [13], [27], [31], [32]. It is also
Discussion
Ideally this systematic review would have included a meta-analysis of SNOM of abdominal GSW, but the quality of the available data, differing definitions of SNOM and of what constitutes an abdominal GSW all preclude this possibility. Even if these definitions had been standardised throughout the studies reviewed, the likely degree of overlap and duplication seen in the published results would have significantly reduced the validity and power of such an analysis.
One of the principle difficulties
Conclusions
Non-operative management of abdominal gunshot wounds can be safely applied to approximately one third of civilian abdominal gunshot wounds – haemodynamic stability and an absence of signs of peritonitis are a pre-requisite. Other injuries that preclude serial clinical examination of the abdomen or a CT scan that shows hollow viscus injury are an indication for laparotomy even in the absence of clinical signs. In non-operatively managed patients, the development of abdominal signs or evidence of
Disclaimer
Any opinions expressed within this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position or policies of the Ministry of Defence.
Conflict of interest statement
The Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in the publication of this article. Both authors are employees of the UK Ministry of Defence and work as military surgeons within the UK National Health Service.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Mr Mike Rowe and his staff at the DMLS Central Library, Lichfield, for their assistance in obtaining the papers used for this article.
References (38)
- et al.
Nonoperative management of abdominal gunshot wounds
Ann Emerg Med
(2004) - et al.
Non-operative management of blunt liver trauma: feasible and safe also in centres with a low trauma incidence
HPB (Oxford)
(2009) - et al.
Evaluation of selective treatment of penetrating abdominal trauma
J Surg Educ
(2008) - et al.
A selective approach to the management of gunshot wounds to the back
Am J Surg
(1997) - et al.
Gunshot injuries to the liver: the role of selective nonoperative management
J Am Coll Surg
(1999) - et al.
Selective non-operative management of solid organ injury following abdominal gunshot wounds
Injury
(2007) - et al.
Nonoperative management of pelvic gunshot wounds
Am J Surg
(2011) - et al.
Major Trauma
(2007) - et al.
Selective conservative management of penetrating abdominal injuries
Surg Gynecol Obstet
(1970) - et al.
Selective nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal solid organ injuries
Ann Surg
(2006)
The impact of published recommendations on the management of penetrating abdominal injury
Br J Surg
Surgical judgment in the management of penetrating wounds of the abdomen: experience with 2212 patients
Ann Surg
Unnecessary laparotomies for trauma: a prospective study of morbidity
J Trauma
Selective nonoperative management in 1,856 patients with abdominal gunshot wounds: should routine laparotomy still be the standard of care?
Ann Surg
Gunshot wound of the abdomen: role of selective conservative management
Br J Surg
Triple-contrast helical CT in penetrating torso trauma: a prospective study to determine peritoneal violation and the need for laparotomy
AJR Am J Roentgenol
Gunshot wounds of abdomen: evaluation of stable patients with triple-contrast helical CT
Radiology
Abdominal computed tomographic scan for patients with gunshot wounds to the abdomen selected for nonoperative management
J Trauma
When to operate on abdominal gunshot wounds
Scand J Surg
Cited by (50)
Avoiding Misdiagnosis of Abdominal Vascular Catastrophes
2021, Emergency Medicine Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :Stab wounds cause damage by laceration and tearing, whereas the higher energy of gunshot wounds also causes damage to the surrounding tissue it penetrates by temporary cavitation. Despite stabbings being 3 times more common, firearms cause almost 90% of the deaths, mainly due to the greater energy that is transmitted to tissues.6 As with blunt trauma, organs are more likely injured than vascular structures, with small intestine, colon, and liver injuries occurring most frequently.
Time to surgery: Is it truly crucial in initially stable patients with penetrating injury?
2021, InjuryCitation Excerpt :The indications for both types of treatments are well described and reflected in multiple guidelines [8,9]. Moreover, in selected patients with abdominal gunshot wounds, selective non-operative approach is also supported in several studies [10,11]. There is a worldwide consensus among trauma experts that trauma patients with peritoneal signs, evisceration and/or clinical signs of gastrointestinal bleeding should undergo immediate surgery.
Evaluation of penetrating abdominal and pelvic trauma
2020, European Journal of RadiologyCitation Excerpt :MDCT has been proven accurate in predicting the need for laparotomy in penetrating abdominal trauma with pooled estimated sensitivity of 94 % and specificity of 95 % [7,13]. Currently acceptable surgical guidelines recommend the use of SNOM on patients who are hemodynamically stable after penetrating injury and lack signs of diffuse abdominal tenderness (i.e. peritonitis) [13,23,27,28]. This is valid for stab wounds and is also applied to gunshot wounds when the track is tangential to the peritoneal cavity.
The Evolution of Nonoperative Management of Abdominal Gunshot Wounds in the United States
2020, Journal of Surgical ResearchManaging post-traumatic gunshot thoraco-abdominal bleeding by intervention embolisation: A case report
2019, Journal of Taibah University Medical SciencesCitation Excerpt :Several publications showed that 20%–30% of patients with abdominal GSWs who underwent laparotomies also underwent unnecessary surgeries, strengthening the importance of approaches such as NOM.8,9,22,23 In recent review articles and guidelines about NOM of penetrating abdominal trauma, the method was considered effective with success rates ranging from 69% to 100%.18,24,25 In an analytic review of 6072 patients, it was found that only 15.5% required laparotomies for the treatment of complications or failure of NOM.24
Laparotomy Due to War-Related Penetrating Abdominal Trauma in Civilians: Experience from Syria 2011-2017
2021, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness