Table 1 Characteristics of eligible studies.
From: A systematic review of emergency room laparotomy in patients with severe abdominal trauma
Author | Year | Study design | Location | Study period | Setting | Comparison of interventions | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mattox et al. | 1979 | Observational, single-center | USA | 1972–1977 | Conventional ER | None, 51 ER laparotomies | All patients died (51/51; 100%) |
Lund et al. | 2011 | Observational, single-center | Denmark | 2003–2009 | Conventional ER | ER laparotomy (44) SBP > 80 mmHg (14) vs. 80 mmHg ≥ SBP > 60 mmHg (10) vs. SBP ≤ 60mmHg (20) | 59% mortality after 30 days. SBP > 80 mmHg (36% mortality) vs. 80 mmHg ≥ SBP > 60 mmHg (50% mortality) vs. SBP ≤ 60mmHg (66% mortality) |
Groven et al. | 2013 | Observational, single-center | Norway | 2002–2009 | Conventional ER | ER laparotomy (80) vs. OR laparotomy (87) | Mortality (65% in ER group vs. 30% in OR group; p < 0.001) Time to laparotomy (median 17.0 min in ER group vs. 40.0 min in OR group; p < 0.001) |
Ito et al. | 2018 | Observational, single-center | Tokyo, Japan | 2013–2017 | Conventional ER | ER surgery (26 laparotomies) vs. OR surgery (34 laparotomies) | In-hospital mortality (38.2% in ER group vs. 0.0% in OR group; p < 0.001) Time to surgery (median 43 min in ER group vs. 109 min in OR group; p = 0.043) |
Ito et al. | 2019 | Observational, single-center | Tokyo, Japan | 2013–2017 | Conventional ER | ER laparotomy (31)/thoracotomy (13)/PPP (16) vs. OR laparotomy (37)/thoracotomy (8) | In-hospital mortality (23% in ER group vs. 0.0% in OR group; p < 0.01) Time to operation (median 43 min in ER group vs. 111 min in OR group; p = 0.09) |
Kinoshita et al. | 2019 | Observational, single-center | Osaka, Japan | 2007–2015 | Hybrid ER | Hybrid ER (336, 18 laparotomies) vs. conventional (360, 32 laparotomies) in terms of bleeding control surgery | 28-day mortality due to exsanguination (3% in hybrid ER group vs. 8% in conventional group; p = 0.007) Time to bleeding control surgery (median 48 min in hybrid ER group vs. 73 min in conventional group; p = 0.079) |
Umemura et al. | 2021 | Observational, single-center | Osaka, Japan | 2007–2020 | Hybrid ER | Hybrid ER (690, 59 emergency truncal surgeries) vs. conventional (360, 44 emergency truncal surgeries) in terms of bleeding control intervention | 28-day mortality (12.7% in hybrid ER group vs. 21.7% in conventional group; p < 0.001) Time to bleeding control intervention (median 42 min in hybrid ER group vs. 72 min in conventional group; p < 0.001) |
Watanabe et al. | 2021 | Observational, single-center | Shimane, Japan | 2016–2019 | Hybrid ER | Hybrid ER (145, 39 interventions*) vs. conventional (134, 24 interventions) in terms of intervention | RBC transfusion (median 6 units in hybrid ER group vs. 2 units in conventional group; p = 0.012) Intervention (median 41 min in hybrid ER group vs. 101 min in conventional group; p = 0.0007) |
Maruyama et al. | 2024 | Observational, single-center | Osaka, Japan | 2016–2023 | Hybrid ER | ‘CT first’ (6, 5 DCS) vs. ‘aortic occlusion first’ (7, 4 DCS) | 54% 28-day mortality (50% in ‘CT-first’ group vs. 57% in ‘aortic occlusion first’ group) Time to intervention (median 35 min) |
Lee et al. | 2024 | Observational, single-center | South Korea | 2020–2022 | Conventional ER | ER laparotomy (6) vs. OR laparotomy (105) | In-hospital mortality (66.7% in ER group vs. 17.1% in OR group; p = 0.006) Time to operation (median 28.5 min in ER group vs. 104 min in OR group; p < 0.001) |
