ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Laparoscopy versus conventional laparotomy in the management of abdominal trauma: a multi-institutional matched-pair study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopy vs. Laparotomy for the Management of Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of 2D 4K vs. 3D HD laparoscopic imaging systems using a pelvitrainer model: a randomized controlled study.Updates in surgery · 2022Trial
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Penetrating and Blunt Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2026Review
- Nationwide analysis of minimally invasive surgical approach in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Case Report: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic primary repair for pancreaticoduodenal grade V injury in a pediatric patient.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive management of penetrating thoracic and abdominal injuries: a case series.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Updates on Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy in the Management of Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Comparison of Clinical Characteristics, Therapy, and Short-Term Prognosis between Blunt and Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: A Multicentric Retrospective Cohort Study.Emergency medicine international · 2024Article
- Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Article
- Utilization of deep neuromuscular blockade combined with reduced abdominal pressure in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An academic perspective.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Use of minimally invasive surgery for the management of hollow viscus traumatic injuries.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopy 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionLaparoscopy 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.