Laparoscopy Compared With Laparotomy for the Management of Pediatric Blunt Abdominal Trauma

Background: There is minimal evidence evaluating the risks and benefits of laparoscopy use in hemodynamically stable children with suspected abdominal injuries. The objective of this study was to evaluate postoperative outcomes in a large cohort of hemodynamically stable pediatric patients with blunt abdominal injury. Methods: Using the 2015-2016 National Trauma Data Bank, all patients aged <18 y with injury severity score (ISS) ≤25, Glasgow coma scale ≥13, and normal blood pressure who underwent an abdominal operation for blunt abdominal trauma were included. Patients were grouped into three treatment groups: laparotomy, laparoscopy, and laparoscopy converted to laparotomy. Treatment effect estimation with inverse probability weighting was used to determine the association between treatment group and outcomes of interest. Results: Of 720 patients, 504 underwent laparotomy, 132 underwent laparoscopy, and 84 underwent laparoscopy converted to laparotomy. The median age was 10 (IQR: 7-15) y, and the median ISS was 9 (IQR: 5-14). Mean hospital length of stay was 2.1 d shorter (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-3.2 d) and mean intensive care unit length of stay was 1.1 d shorter (95% CI: 0.6-1.5 d) for the laparoscopy group compared with the laparotomy group. The laparoscopy group had a 2.0% lower mean probability of surgical site infection than the laparotomy group (95% CI: 1.0%-3.0%). Conclusions: In this cohort of hemodynamically stable pediatric patients with blunt abdominal injury, laparoscopy may have improved outcomes over laparotomy.