[Should routine exploratory laparotomy be performed in the presence of an abdominal wound? Discussion apropos of 176 cases]

Abstract

Management of abdominal wounds is presently the subject of discussion between the partisans of routine laparotomy and those preferring "armed" surveillance. Results of study of a series of 176 abdominal wounds subjected to surgical dogma showed: that the diagnosis of non penetrating wounds (17.6%) was not always evident, due either to their anatomical localization (frontier region wounds) or to insufficient local exploration in urgent cases (6.6% of false-negatives), that the existence of serious clinical signs (50 cases) was always associated with one or more visceral lesions, requiring urgent laparotomy with a morbidity of 20% and a mortality of 8% (4 cases), that in the case of asymptomatic penetrating wounds (96 cases), routine laparotomy did nevertheless allow the diagnosis of visceral lesions in 50 cases (including 23 major lesions) but was of no utility in 46 cases (31.5% of blind laparotomies for the total series). The elevated proportion of useless laparotomies (30% in the literature), the result of a dogmatic attitude, or the risk of a delayed intervention (5 to 8%) in the series practising the selective method, led to a modification in the authors' attitude. The existence of serious signs should obviously result in a laparotomy. In their absence, and when confronted with a penetrating or doubtful (frontier region) wound, an exploratory celioscopy is proposed to ensure complete abdominal exploration, to confirm the presence or absence of penetration, to treat minimal lesions and to perform a classical laparotomy in case of evident necessity.