单位：[1]Department of General Surgery, Chinese People’s LiberationArmy General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853,People’s Republic of China[2]Institute of General Surgery, Chinese People’s LiberationArmy General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China[3]Department of General Surgery, National Clinical ResearchCenter for Digestive Diseases, Beijing Friendship Hospital,Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China临床科室国家中心普外分中心普外五科（综合普外科）首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院[4]Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospitalof the PLA General Hospital (304 Hospital), Beijing 100048,China
Background Laparoscopy is being increasingly applied as either a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention in the management of abdominal trauma. However, its outcomes in comparison with conventional laparotomy remain unclear, especially in terms of therapeutic management. Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients from three trauma centers in Beijing, China. Fifty-four patients undergoing laparoscopic interventions for abdominal trauma by experienced laparoscopists were enrolled in the laparoscopy group (LP group). Another 54 patients who underwent laparotomy (LT group) were matched according to the patients' baseline characteristics, causes of injury, and hemodynamic parameters. Perioperative clinical parameters and short-term survival were compared between these two groups. Results The baseline characteristics were comparable between these two groups (LP vs. LT: Age, p = 0.112; Sex, p = 0.820; Injury severity score, p = 0.158; Cause distribution, p = 0.840). The most common cause was traffic accident (36.1%) and the most frequent surgical intervention was bowel repair/resection (34.3%) in our study. The operation time was similar in these two groups (LP vs. LT: 202.2 +/- 72.58 vs. 194.11 +/- 82.95 min, p = 0.295) while post-operative complication rate was slightly reduced in LP group (7.7% vs. 13.5%) with no statistical significance (p = 0.383). Opioid use was lower in the LP than LT group (11.67 +/- 4.08 vs. 26.0 +/- 13.42 morphine equivalents (MEQ), p = 0.034). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LP group (13.48 +/- 10.9 vs. 18.64 +/- 14.73 days, p = 0.021). One patient in the LT group died of an intra-abdominal abscess and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome 19 days postoperatively, while all patients in the LP group recovered and were discharged. Conclusion Laparoscopy is feasible and safe in treating abdominal trauma patients in hemodynamically stable conditions performed by experienced surgeons. Laparoscopy might have the advantages of reduced pain and quicker recovery with similarly favorable clinical outcomes.
第一作者单位：[1]Department of General Surgery, Chinese People’s LiberationArmy General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853,People’s Republic of China[2]Institute of General Surgery, Chinese People’s LiberationArmy General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
共同第一作者：
通讯作者：
通讯机构：[1]Department of General Surgery, Chinese People’s LiberationArmy General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853,People’s Republic of China[2]Institute of General Surgery, Chinese People’s LiberationArmy General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714)：
Gao Yunhe,Li Shaoqing,Xi Hongqing,et al.Laparoscopy versus conventional laparotomy in the management of abdominal trauma: a multi-institutional matched-pair study[J].SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY and OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES.2020,34(5):2237-2242.doi:10.1007/s00464-019-07013-4.
APA：
Gao, Yunhe,Li, Shaoqing,Xi, Hongqing,Bian, Shibo,Zhang, Kecheng...&Chen, Lin.(2020).Laparoscopy versus conventional laparotomy in the management of abdominal trauma: a multi-institutional matched-pair study.SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY and OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES,34,(5)
MLA：
Gao, Yunhe,et al."Laparoscopy versus conventional laparotomy in the management of abdominal trauma: a multi-institutional matched-pair study".SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY and OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES 34..5(2020):2237-2242
