title: Open or closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage for abdominal trauma? A meta-analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To perform a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing the closed and open technique of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) in trauma patients to determine whether there are any difference in outcomes.
  
  
  METHODS
  A search of MEDLINE database of English language articles published from 1977 to 1999 was conducted by using the terms diagnostic peritoneal lavage, trauma, and randomized controlled trials. A manual search and Cochrane Library database search was also conducted. Seven randomized controlled trials, including a total of 1,126 patients were identified that compared closed versus open technique. Two reviewers assessed the trials independently. Trial quality was critically appraised by using the Jadad Instrument, a validated published quality scale. Data extraction of major complications, technical difficulties, procedure times, and false-negative and false-positive rates was carried out. The fixed effects model was used for statistical analysis. The Peto odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The overall quality of studies was poor (mean, 2.4/7). Major complications did not differ significantly between closed versus open technique (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.15 to 2.92. Technical failures and difficulties were significantly higher in the closed group, i.e., OR 4.33 (95% CI, 1.96 to 9.56) and OR 4.19 (95% CI, 2.842 to 6.19), respectively. Accuracy of closed and open DPL was comparable with no difference in false-negative or false-positive rates between the two techniques. Procedure time was consistently lower in the closed technique.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The closed DPL technique is comparable to the standard open DPL technique in terms of accuracy and major complications. The advantage of reduced time to perform the closed DPL is offset by the increased technical difficulties and failures of this group. Therefore, any significant benefit of routine closed DPL in improving outcomes can be excluded with more confidence based on pooled data than by the individual trials alone.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery and the Trauma Program, University of Western Ontario, London Health Science Centre, Canada.
authors.forename: N F
authors.initials: NF
authors.lastname: Hodgson
authors.forename: T C
authors.initials: TC
authors.lastname: Stewart
authors.forename: M J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Girotti
mesh_terms: D000007:Abdominal Injuries / Q000175:diagnosis*; D006801:Humans; D009104:Multiple Trauma / Q000175:diagnosis; D016017:Odds Ratio; D010533:Peritoneal Lavage / Q000379:methods*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic