Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Bedside Laparoscopy in the Critically Ill: A Review of the Literature

A peer-reviewed version of this preprint was published in:
Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024, 13(6), 1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061530

Submitted:

12 February 2024

Posted:

13 February 2024

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) can present many abdominal conditions that need a prompt diagnosis and timely treatment because of their general frailty. Clinical evaluation and diagnostic tools like ultrasound or CT scan are not reliable or feasible in these patients. Bedside laparoscopy (BSL) is a minimally invasive procedure that allows surgeons to assess the abdominal cavity directly in the ICU, thus avoiding unnecessary exploratory laparotomy or incidence related to intra-hospital transfer. We conducted a review of the literature to summarize the state-of-the-art of BSL. Medline, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases were utilized to identify all relevant publications. Indications, contraindications, technical aspects, and outcomes are discussed. The procedure is safe, feasible, and effective. When other diagnostic tools fail to diagnose or exclude an intra-abdominal condition in ICU patients, BSL should be preferred over exploratory laparotomy.
Keywords: 
bedside laparoscopy
;  
minimally invasive surgery
;  
critically ill patients
Subject: 
Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Surgery

Introduction

Critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) can present many abdominal conditions [1] that need a prompt diagnosis and timely treatment because of their general frailty. Clinical evaluation is not always reliable due to sedation or analgesia. In some cases, it can be misleading, causing a delayed diagnosis, which can be detrimental to this category of patients [2]. Furthermore, the accuracy of diagnostic tests such as ultrasound or CT scan is reduced. In particular, ultrasound benefits from patient compliance and is operator dependent [3], while CT scan requires intra-hospital transportation with its established rates of related complications and mortality [4,5]. These include patient-related or equipment-related adverse events such as hypotension, respiratory distress, dysrhythmias, central line disconnections, oxygen supply problems, or accidental extubation.
Given the physiological derangement of ICU patients, the impaired physical examination, the reduced accuracy of diagnostic tests, and the time-dependency imposed by these situations, the treatment of choice - when a diagnosis has not been established - has historically been the exploratory laparotomy. To date, there are no data regarding the rate of positive intra-abdominal findings at exploratory laparotomy in critically ill patients. Nonetheless, negative laparotomy is a reality surgeons encounter in their practice, and some reports on other types of patients [6,7,8,9] suggest that his rate and associated comorbidities are far from negligible.
Bedside laparoscopy (BSL) is a minimally invasive procedure that allows surgeons to assess the abdominal cavity directly in the ICU, thus avoiding unnecessary exploratory laparotomy or incidence related to intra-hospital transfer.
The present review summarizes the state-of-the-art of BSL.

Materials and Methods

We searched through Medline, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases using these terms: “bedside laparoscopy”, “diagnostic laparoscopy”, “critically ill”, “ICU”, and “intensive care unit”. MeshTerms were included. We also conducted a hand-search of references of previous reviews on the same topic to include all relevant studies.

Indications and contraindications

The physiological consequences of pneumoperitoneum, especially in critically ill patients, allow only for brief and basic operations as they may outweigh the benefits of BSL in case of time-consuming or technically challenging procedures [10,11]. Therefore, BSL should be primarily used to recognize intra-abdominal pathology not identified by other diagnostic tools or to perform short and simple operations such as controlling minor bleeding or placing a drain. By following these recommendations, BLS can effectively lower the rate of unnecessary exploratory laparotomy while the instrumentation requirements and the possible complications are kept at a minimum.
The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) guidelines state that the indications for diagnostic laparoscopy in acute conditions in which a diagnosis has not been established are trauma, acute abdominal pain, and ICU patients [12]. In the first two categories, diagnostic laparoscopy is used only in hemodynamically stable patients [13]; hence, the procedure is generally performed in the operating room. Conversely, for critically ill patients, BSL can and should be conducted in the ICU for the following reasons:
  • Unexplained sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, or multiorgan failure.
  • Abdominal pain or tenderness associated with other signs of sepsis without an obvious indication for laparotomy.
  • Increased abdominal distention that is not a consequence of bowel obstruction.
  • Fever or leukocytosis in an obtunded or sedated patient not explained by another identifiable problem.
  • Metabolic acidosis not explained by another process.
While BSL represents an effective tool in the diagnostic process in the situations mentioned above, surgeons should bear in mind that it is still an invasive procedure with well-known cardiac and respiratory consequences in an already frail population. Thus, a thorough patient selection is mandatory. When planning a BSL, the following contraindications should be considered:
  • Patients unable to tolerate pneumoperitoneum or who are so critical that have no chance of survival even if a treatable intra-abdominal pathology is found.
  • Patients with an already established diagnosis requiring surgical intervention.
  • Patients with uncorrected coagulopathy or hypercapnia.
  • Patients with suspected abdominal compartment syndrome.
  • Recent laparotomy in the last 4-6 weeks.
  • Intra-abdominal adhesions secondary to previous surgical interventions (relative).

Instrumentation and setting

As mentioned above, the severe clinical conditions faced by most patients admitted to the ICU force BSL to be a concise and straightforward procedure. Therefore, the required instrumentation reflects this necessity. In the published series [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24], surgeons utilized a basic laparoscopic set including a monitor, an insufflator, and a light source, all placed on a dedicated mobile tower stored in the ICU, a 30° scope, a light cord, a Hasson trocar (10-12 mm) and two 5 mm trocars, manipulating instruments, and standard sterile dressing and drapes. The procedure was conducted in an isolated single bedroom in the ICU ward. All the staff in the room - consisting of an anesthesiologist, a surgeon and an assistant, one nurse from the operating room, and one ICU nurse - wore protective clothing, surgical masks and caps, and gloves. Standard operating room protocols were meticulously followed to ensure sterility.

Anesthesiological technique

Eight of the included studies reported details on the anesthesiological technique [14,15,16,17,18,21,22,23,24]. An anesthesiologist directed general anesthesia induction, mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic support of the patients during the procedure in all cases except for Karasakalides et al. and Kelly et al.’s work [18,24], in which the ICU nurse was responsible for patient monitoring. The vast majority of patients were already intubated. Patients not requiring mechanical ventilation were generally intubated just before the procedure. Only Pecoraro et al. did not insert an endotracheal tube in patients not artificially ventilated before BSL [22]. General anesthesia was performed in a total intravenous fashion via a bolus of propofol, midazolam, ketamine, and remifentanil or fentanyl. Neuromuscular blockade was achieved with either atracurium or cisatracurium. When needed, hemodynamic support was ensured with noradrenaline or dobutamine infusion.

Surgical technique

Patients were placed in their ICU bed in a supine position; Trendelemburg and anti-Trendelemburg inclinations were used to explore the entire abdominal cavity. A standard surgical field, with abdominal prepping and surgical dressing and drapes, was created following operating room protocols. The pneumoperitoneum was achieved using an open Hasson technique with a 10-12 mm trocar placed in the paraumbilical region. However, the suspected presence of intra-abdominal adhesions should dictate the placement of the first trocar, aiming for a so-called “virgin” site to minimize the risk of hollow viscus injury. Only Jaramillo et al. used a Veress needle to insufflate the abdominal cavity [16].
When reported, intra-abdominal pressure was generally maintained between 8 and 10 mmHg to minimize the physiological consequences of pneumoperitoneum, especially with concerns about hemodynamic instability in an already compromised population. Peris et al. reported pressure of 8 to 15 mmHg [15], while Walsh et al. set intra-abdominal pressure at 15 mmHg [17]. Once the pneumoperitoneum was established, two additional 5 mm trocars were generally placed. These two additional working ports were often inserted “as needed” without a standardized technique. Alemanno et al. reported the insertion of two 5 mm trocars in the left part of the abdomen to explore the right quadrants and two 5 mm trocars on the right part of the abdomen to explore the left quadrants [14], while Hackert et al. and Bergamini et al. used two 5 mm trocars in the left and right lower quadrants [19,21].

Patients characteristics and outcomes

In the included studies [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25], 399 patients underwent BSL. The most frequent ICU admission diagnosis was by far post-cardiac surgery monitoring with 202 cases (50.6% of patients), followed by sepsis (68 cases), trauma (41 cases), vascular surgery (16 cases), respiratory failure (12 cases), cardiogenic shock (12 cases), and some other less frequent etiologies. Patients characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. These results are partly biased because of the studies by Hackert et al. [19] and Bergamini et al. [21], which enrolled only patients admitted to the ICU after a cardiac surgery procedure. Nonetheless, gastrointestinal complications after cardiac surgery are rare but devastating occurrences often burdened by serious clinical sequelae and high mortality rates, with incidence rates ranging from <1% to 4.1 % and mortality rates between 13.9% and 63% [26,27]. In a retrospective analysis of 4819 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, Filsoufi et al. found age, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, hemodynamic instability, cardiopulmonary bypass time >120 minutes, peripheral vascular disease, renal and hepatic failure as independent predictors of gastrointestinal complications [28].
An intra-abdominal pathology was found in 210 of these patients, with positive findings rates ranging from 30.2% to 88.2%. By far, the two most frequent diagnoses after BSL were bowel ischemia/hypoperfusion, discovered in 93 cases with rates ranging from 11.2% to 66.7%, and acute cholecystitis, found to be the underlying cause of clinical worsening in 64 patients with rates ranging from 0% to 67.4%. Together, they accounted for 74.7% of all positive findings and were present in 39.3% of all BSLs performed. Other positive intra-abdominal explorations were due to abnormal colonic distension (4 cases), post-traumatic occult injuries (3 cases), perforated peptic ulcer (3 cases), acute pancreatitis (2 cases), and liver ischemia (2 cases). Interestingly, peritonitis (either purulent or fibrinous), without an identifiable cause, was the only abnormal finding at BSL in 11 patients. BSL also showed high sensitivity rates, with percentages equal to or above 90% in the three studies that confirmed BSL findings with either laparotomy or autopsy [16,19,24]. It is to be noted that although these sensitivity rates are comparable to those of diagnostic laparoscopy and, therefore, could be considered representative of the actual rates, the total sample size of the studies by Jaramillo et al., Hackert et al., and Kelly et al. is comprised of 32 patients. Further studies, including a more significant number of patients, are needed to confirm these results.
The most favorable feature of BSL is its mini-invasiveness, allowing the diagnosis or exclusion of intra-abdominal pathologies while avoiding exploratory laparotomy in patients in whom other diagnostic tools were unfeasible or inconclusive. Literature data indicates that an unnecessary exploratory laparotomy can be avoided in 30.6-91.6% of cases. Excluding data from Jaramillo et al. and Hackert et al., which did not report the percentage of patients not necessitating a subsequent laparotomy, 226 out of 309 patients did not undergo an exploratory laparotomy.
After a positive BSL, the treatment was mainly operative - either radiologic, laparoscopic, or laparotomic - with rates ranging from 20.0% to 100.0%. The 0.0-21.4% of patients were treated conservatively. There was also a considerable rate of palliative support, which is to be expected in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU ward.
Mortality rates were also significantly high in patients with positive findings at BSL, ranging from 33.3% to 80.0%. No death occurred during or as a consequence of BSL. Therefore, these rates are not related to BSL itself but rather to the frail conditions of these patients.
The safety profile of BSL in the included studies was noticeable. Most of the studies reported no complications, while in the other studies, the most frequent post-procedural complication was superficial wound infection. No major complication (Clavien-Dindo > II [25]) was observed.

Limitations

In all the included studies, the Authors have pointed out that the main limitation of BSL is the exploration of the retroperitoneal compartment. Although this statement is undoubtedly true, the present review has demonstrated that in 74.7% of patients, the unknown intra-abdominal pathology is either bowel ischemia/hypoperfusion or acute cholecystitis. Furthermore, out of the 210 positive BSL findings, only in 2 patients a retroperitoneal pathological condition (acute pancreatitis) was responsible for the patient’s clinical deterioration.
It is also to be noted that in 11 cases, BSL was able to find peritonitis, either fibrinous or purulent, without an apparent underlying cause. It can be inferred that, in these 11 patients, the peritonitis had an unidentified origin and that BSL was inconclusive or nondiagnostic rather than considering them as cases of “spontaneous” peritonitis.

BSL vs. CT scan

A suspected intra-abdominal pathology in an already compromised population, such as the ICU patients, should not be underestimated because, if not treated swiftly, it could lead to a rapid and severe worsening of the clinical conditions and, in some cases, to death. It is generally investigated with a radiological examination, such as a CT scan of the abdomen, although this technique has different sensitivity and specificity rates for each possible cause. For example, Menke, in his meta-analysis, studied the accuracy of CT in detecting acute mesenteric ischemia for all causes, showing a pooled sensitivity of 93% and a pooled specificity of 95% [29]. When considering the use of abdominal CT scan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, which represents the most common admission diagnosis in patients undergoing BSL, it should be remembered that the most frequent cause of acute mesenteric ischemia is non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI) given the impaired cardiac output peculiar to this group of patients, with rates ranging from 48% to 83% [30,31]. Despite the great accuracy demonstrated by CT scan in detecting acute mesenteric ischemia for all causes, when evaluating only NOMI, CT scan is not as efficient and could potentially underestimate an ongoing ischemic injury [32,33].
Although CT scan has been traditionally thought to be less sensitive than ultrasound for diagnosing acute cholecystitis [34], recent data finds CT scan is more reliable in detecting acute cholecystitis [35]. However, in critically ill patients, the most common cause of acute cholecystitis is acalculous cholecystitis, a clinical entity of which the diagnostic accuracy of CT scan has yet to be studied.
Given that the two most common positive findings at BSL are acute mesenteric ischemia and acute cholecystitis and that the most common underlying causes of these two clinical entities in critically ill patients are NOMI and acute acalculous cholecystitis, it is safe to assume that in this subgroup of patients CT scan has lower efficiency. In a 2015 study by Just et al. analyzing the role of CT scan in identifying a potential infectious source in critically ill patients, CT scan detected an infectious source in 52.8% of cases, resulting in a change in treatment in 85.5% of cases. Conversely, treatment was changed in 16.2% of cases in patients without identification of an infectious source. In their conclusions, the Authors called for a more careful and standardized use of CT scan in ICU patients [36]. In their clinical practice, when evaluating intra-abdominal pathologies in critically ill patients, surgeons should bear in mind the lower accuracy of CT scan and consider BSL in case of an inconclusive clinical examination and radiology.

5. Conclusions

The present review summarizes the state-of-the-art of BSL. The procedure is safe, feasible, and effective. When other diagnostic tools fail to diagnose or exclude an intra-abdominal condition in ICU patients, BSL should be preferred over exploratory laparotomy.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Reintam Blaser A, Starkopf J, Malbrain ML. Abdominal signs and symptoms in intensive care patients. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015;47(4):379-87. [CrossRef]
  2. Crandall M, West MA. Evaluation of the abdomen in the critically ill patient: opening the black box. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006 Aug;12(4):333-9. [CrossRef]
  3. Wang HP, Chen SC. Upper abdominal ultrasound in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2007 May;35(5 Suppl):S208-15. [CrossRef]
  4. Aliaga, M., Forel, JM., De Bourmont, S. et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of CT scans in ICU. Intensive Care Med 41, 436–443 (2015). [CrossRef]
  5. Beckmann U, Gillies DM, Berenholtz SM, Wu AW, Pronovost P. Incidents relating to the intra-hospital transfer of critically ill patients. An analysis of the reports submitted to the Australian Incident Monitoring Study in Intensive Care. Intensive Care Med. 2004 Aug;30(8):1579-85. [CrossRef]
  6. Lowe RJ, Boyd DR, Folk FA, Baker RJ. The negative laparotomy for abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1972 Oct;12(10):853-61. [CrossRef]
  7. Sosa JL, Baker M, Puente I, Sims D, Sleeman D, Ginzburg E, Martin L. Negative laparotomy in abdominal gunshot wounds: potential impact of laparoscopy. J Trauma. 1995 Feb;38(2):194-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sugarbaker PH, Sanders JH, Bloom BS, Wilson RE. Preoperative laparoscopy in diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. Lancet. 1975 Feb 22;1(7904):442-5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Weigelt JA, Kingman RG. Complications of negative laparotomy for trauma. Am J Surg. 1988 Dec;156(6):544-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Safran DB, Orlando R 3rd. Physiologic effects of pneumoperitoneum. Am J Surg. 1994 Feb;167(2):281-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Grushka, J.R., Khwaja, K.A. (2018). Physiologic Effects of Pneumoperitoneum: Implications of Laparoscopy in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Emergency Minimally Invasive Surgery. In: Khwaja, K., Diaz, J. (eds) Minimally Invasive Acute Care Surgery. Springer, Cham. [CrossRef]
  12. Hori, Y., & SAGES Guidelines Committee (2008). Diagnostic laparoscopy guidelines: This guideline was prepared by the SAGES Guidelines Committee and reviewed and approved by the Board of Governors of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), November 2007. Surgical endoscopy, 22(5), 1353–1383. 20 November. [CrossRef]
  13. Sermonesi, G., Tian, B.W.C.A., Vallicelli, C. et al. Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma. World J Emerg Surg 18, 57 (2023). [CrossRef]
  14. Alemanno G, Prosperi P, Di Bella A, Socci F, Batacchi S, Peris A, Pieri M, Olivo G, Quilghini P, Fontanari P, Stefàno P, Giordano A, Iacopini V, Bergamini C, Valeri A. Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy for critically ill patients in the Intensive Care Unit: Retrospective study and review of literature. J Minim Access Surg. 2019 Jan-Mar;15(1):56-62. [CrossRef]
  15. Peris, A., Matano, S., Manca, G. et al. Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy to diagnose intraabdominal pathology in the intensive care unit. Crit Care 13, R25 (2009). [CrossRef]
  16. Jaramillo EJ, Treviño JM, Berghoff KR, Franklin ME Jr. Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy in the intensive care unit: a 13-year experience. JSLS. 2006 Apr-Jun;10(2):155-9.
  17. Walsh, R. M., Popovich, M. J., & Hoadley, J. (1998). Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy and peritoneal lavage in the intensive care unit. Surgical endoscopy, 12(12), 1405–1409. 12. [CrossRef]
  18. Karasakalides, A., Triantafillidou, S., Anthimidis, G., Ganas, E., Mihalopoulou, E., Lagonidis, D., & Nakos, G. (2009). The Use of Bedside Diagnostic Laparoscopy in the Intensive Care Unit. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, 19(3), 333–338. [CrossRef]
  19. Hackert, T., Kienle, P., Weitz, J., Werner, J., Szabo, G., Hagl, S., … Schmidt, J. (2003). Accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy for early diagnosis of abdominal complications after cardiac surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 17(10), 1671–1674. 10. [CrossRef]
  20. Sajid, M. A., Khan, K. S., & Hanif, Z. (2018). Diagnostic laparoscopy to investigate unexplained lactic acidosis in critically ill patients - A descriptive single centre cohort study. Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 36, 231–234. [CrossRef]
  21. Bergamini, C., Alemanno, G., Giordano, A., Pantalone, D., Fontani, G., Di Bella, A.M., Iacopini, V., Prosperi, P., Martellucci, J., 2022. The role of bed-side laparoscopy in the management of acute mesenteric ischemia of recent onset in post-cardiac surgery patients admitted to ICU. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 48, 87–96. [CrossRef]
  22. Pecoraro, A. P., Cacchione, R. N., Sayad, P., Williams, M. E., & Ferzli, G. S. (2001). The routine use of diagnostic laparoscopy in the intensive care unit. Surgical Endoscopy, 15(7), 638–641. 7. [CrossRef]
  23. Ceribelli, C., Adami, E. A., Mattia, S., & Benini, B. (2012). Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy for critically ill patients: a retrospective study of 62 patients. Surgical Endoscopy, 26(12), 3612–3615. [CrossRef]
  24. J. J. Kelly; J. C. Puyana; M. P. Callery; S. M. Yood; A. Sandor; D. E. M. Litwin (2000). The feasibility and accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy in the septic ICU patient. , 14(7), 617–621. [CrossRef]
  25. Clavien, P. A., Barkun, J., de Oliveira, M. L., Vauthey, J. N., Dindo, D., Schulick, R. D., de Santibañes, E., Pekolj, J., Slankamenac, K., Bassi, C., Graf, R., Vonlanthen, R., Padbury, R., Cameron, J. L., & Makuuchi, M. (2009). The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Annals of surgery, 250(2), 187–196. [CrossRef]
  26. Andersson B, Nilsson J, Brandt J, Höglund P, Andersson R. Gastrointestinal complications after cardiac surgery. Br J Surg. 2005 Mar;92(3):326-33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ashfaq A, Johnson DJ, Chapital AB, Lanza LA, DeValeria PA, Arabia FA. Changing trends in abdominal surgical complications following cardiac surgery in an era of advanced procedures. A retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2015 Mar;15:124-8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Filsoufi F, Rahmanian PB, Castillo JG, Scurlock C, Legnani PE, Adams DH. Predictors and outcome of gastrointestinal complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Ann Surg. 2007 Aug;246(2):323-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Menke, J. Menke J. Diagnostic accuracy of multidetector CT in acute mesenteric ischemia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2010 Jul;256(1):93-101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Guillaume, Alexis; Pili-Floury, Sébastien; Chocron, Sidney; Delabrousse, Eric; De Parseval, Bénédicte; Koch, Stephane; Samain, Emmanuel; Capellier, Gilles; Piton, Gaël. Acute Mesenteric Ischemia Among Postcardiac Surgery Patients Presenting with Multiple Organ Failure. SHOCK 47(3):p 296-302, March 2017. 20 March. [CrossRef]
  31. Eris C, Yavuz S, Yalcinkaya S, Gucu A, Toktas F, Yumun G, Erdolu B, Ozyazıcıoglu A. Acute mesenteric ischemia after cardiac surgery: an analysis of 52 patients. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013 Oct 27;2013:631534. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Trompeter, M., Brazda, T., Remy, C.T. et al. Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia: etiology, diagnosis, and interventional therapy. Eur Radiol 12, 1179–1187 (2002). [CrossRef]
  33. Kwok HC, Dirkzwager I, Duncan DS, Gillham MJ, Milne DG. The accuracy of multidetector computed tomography in the diagnosis of non-occlusive mesenteric ischaemia in patients after cardiovascular surgery. Crit Care Resusc. 2014 Jun;16(2):90-5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Harvey RT, Miller WT Jr. Acute biliary disease: initial CT and follow-up US versus initial US and follow-up CT. Radiology. 1999 Dec;213(3):831-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wertz JR, Lopez JM, Olson D, Thompson WM. Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound and CT in Evaluating Acute Cholecystitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Aug;211(2):W92-W97. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Just KS, Defosse JM, Grensemann J, Wappler F, Sakka SG. Computed tomography for the identification of a potential infectious source in critically ill surgical patients. J Crit Care. 2015 Apr;30(2):386-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Summary of the included studies.
Table 1. Summary of the included studies.
Study Year Patients Admission diagnosis (n) Positive findings (%) Diagnosis (n) Unnecessary laparotomy avoided (%) Treatment (n) Mortality (BSL +)
Alemanno [14] 2019 129 Cardiac surgery (90)
Sepsis (25)
Trauma (14)		 69 (53.5) Bowel ischemia (40)
Bowel hypoperfusion (6)
Cholecystitis (13)
Bowel perforation (2)
Purulent peritonitis (4)
Other (4)		 55.0 Operative (58)
Conservative (6)
Palliative (5)		 40.6
Peris [15] 2009 32 Cardiac surgery (6)
Sepsis (12)
Trauma (14)		 15 (46.8) Cholecystitis (7)
Bowel ischemia (1)
Bowel perforation (2)
Bowel hypoperfusion (2)
Purulent peritonitis (3)		 75.0 Operative (8)
PGBD (5)
Conservative (2)		 33.3
Jaramillo [16] 2006 13 Sepsis (7)
MOF (1)
Acute myocardial infarction (2)
Intestinal obstruction (1)
Bowel ischemia (2)		 9 (69.2) Bowel ischemia (6)
Bowel perforation (1)
Cholecystitis (2)
 / Operative (2)
Palliative (7)		 77.8
Walsh [17] 1998 12 Cardiac surgery (1)
Cardiac (not surgery) (3)
Sepsis (5)
Respiratory failure (2)
Aortic occlusion (1)		 5 (41.6) Bowel ischemia (2)
Sigmoid diverticulitis (1)
Terminal ileitis (1)
Non-purulent peritonitis (1)		 91.6 Operative (1)
Palliative (4)		 80.0
Karasakalides [18] 2009 35 Trauma (5)
Respiratory failure (9)
Cardiogenic shock (8)
Sepsis (11)
Cerebral hemorrage (2)		 15 (42.8) Bowel ischemia (6)
Cholecystitis (5)
Biliary peritonitis (1)
Purulent peritonitis (2)
Mesenteric hemorrage (1)		 82.8 Operative (11)
Palliative (4)		 60.0
Hackert [19] 2003 17 Cardiac surgery (17) 15 (88.2) Bowel ischemia (6)
Bowel distension (4)
Acute cholecystitis (3)
Fibrinous peritonitis (1)
Acute pancreatitis (1)		 / Operative (14)
Conservative (1)		 53.3
Sajid [20] 2018 28 / 14 (50.0) Bowel ischemia (7)
Cholecystitis (2)
Liver ischemia (2)
Acute pancreatitis (1)
Gangrenous uterus (1)
Gastric volvulus (1)		 82.1 Opertive (8)
Conservative (3)
Palliative (3)		 /
Bergamini [21] 2022 43 Cardiac surgery (43) 13 (30.2) Bowel ischemia (13) 69.7 / 46.1
Pecoraro [22] 2001 11 Sepsis (4)
Intestinal perforation (3)
Bowel ischemia (1)
Thoracic surgery (1)
Diabetic ketoacidosis (1)
Jaundice (1)		 6 (54.5) Duodenal perforation (1)
LUQ abscess (1)
Large pelvic mass (1)
Cirrhosis (1)
Bowel ischemia (1)
Colo-vesical fistula (1)		 63.6 Operative (4)
Percutaneous drainage (1)
Conservative (1)		 50.0
Ceribelli [23] 2012 62 Cardiac surgery (38)
Vascular surgery (13)
Trauma (6)
Sepsis (3)
Neurosurgery (2)		 43 (69.3) Cholecystitis (29)
Bowel ischemia (5)
Diaphragmatic rupture (3)
Perforated peptic ulcer (2)
Minor hepatic/splenic injury (2)
Aorto-aortic anastomosis leak (2)		 30.6 Operative (43) 48.8
Kelly [24] 2000 17 Cardiac surgery (7)
Vascular surgery (3)
Trauma (2)
Neurosurgery (1)
Urologic surgery (1)
ESRD (1)
Cardiac (not surgery) (1)
Respiratory failure (1)		 6 (35.3) Bowel ischemia (4)
Cholecystitis (2)		 70.6 Operative (6) 50.0
Abb: BSL: Bedside laparoscopy; PGBD: percutaneous gallbladder drainage; ESRD: end-stage renal disease.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated

Accessibility

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings