Complications of primary repair of colon injury: literature review of 2,964 cases

Colon and rectal injuries during Operation Iraqi Freedom: are there any changing trends in management or outcome?

PURPOSE

Despite the evolution in the management of traumatic colorectal injuries in both civilian and military settings during the previous few decades, they continue to be a source of significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to analyze management and clinical outcomes from a cohort of patients suffering colorectal injuries.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from all patients injured and treated at the 31st Combat Support Hospital during Operation Iraqi Freedom from September 2003 to December 2004.

RESULTS

From the 3,442 patients treated, 175 (5.1 percent) had colorectal injuries. Patients were predominately male (95 percent), suffered penetrating injuries (96 percent), and had a mean age of 29 (range, 4-70) years. Ninety-one percent of patients had associated injuries. Initial management included primary repair (34 percent), stoma (33 percent), resection with anastomosis (19 percent), and damage control only (14 percent). By injury location, stomas were placed more frequently with rectal or sphincter injuries 65 percent (25/40) vs. other sites (right, 19 percent (8/42); transverse, 25 percent (8/32); left, 36 percent (20/55); P < 0.01). Thirteen percent of patients eventually received stomas for failure of initial in-continuity management. Patients with colorectal injuries had a significantly increased mortality rate than those without (18 percent (31/175) vs. 8 percent (269/3267); P < 0.001) but not the subset without colorectal injuries undergoing celiotomy (18 vs.14.4 percent; P = 0.41). Rectal (odds radio, 22; P = 0.03) and transverse colon (odds radio, 17; P = 0.04) injuries were independently associated with increased mortality in multivariate regression analysis. Initial placement of stoma had an independent association with lower leak rates (odds radio, 0.06; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Injury to the rectum or transverse colon is an independent predictor of mortality. The use of a diverting stoma varied by injury site and was associated with a decreased leak rate but demonstrated no impact on the incidence of sepsis or mortality.

Multicentre randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colonic resection

Background

Recent studies have suggested that MBP does not lower the risk of postoperative septic complications after elective colorectal surgery. This randomized clinical trial assessed whether preoperative MBP is beneficial in elective colonic surgery.

Methods

A total of 1505 patients, aged 18–85 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I–III, were randomized to MBP or no MBP before open elective surgery for cancer, adenoma or diverticular disease of the colon. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular, general infectious and surgical-site complications within 30 days, and secondary endpoints were death and reoperations within 30 days.

Results

A total of 1343 patients were evaluated, 686 randomized to MBP and 657 to no MBP. There were no significant differences in overall complications between the two groups: cardiovascular complications occurred in 5·1 and 4·6 per cent respectively, general infectious complications in 7·9 and 6·8 per cent, and surgical-site complications in 15·1 and 16·1 per cent. At least one complication was recorded in 24·5 per cent of patients who had MBP and 23·7 per cent who did not.

Conclusion

MBP does not lower the complication rate and can be omitted before elective colonic resection. Registration number: ISRCTN28535118 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Preparar el colon para la cirugía. ¿Necesidad real o nada más (y nada menos) que el peso de la tradición?

Mechanical bowel preparation is a traditional procedure for preparing patients for colorectal surgery. This practice aims to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications since colonic fecal content has classically been related to stool spillage during surgery and anastomotic disruption. However, increasing evidence against its routine use can be found in experimental studies, clinical observations, prospective studies, and meta-analyses. We performed a review of the literature on mechanical bowel preparation and its consequences. There is no clear evidence that preoperative bowel cleansing reduces the septic complications of surgery and routine use of this procedure may increase anastomotic leaks and morbidity. Therefore, the results suggest that mechanical preparation is not required in elective colon and rectal surgery and that its use should be restricted to specific indications such as small nonpalpable tumors to aid their localization during laparoscopic procedures or to enable intraoperative colonoscopy. The role of mechanical bowel preparation in rectal surgery is not well defined and further trials with a larger number of patients are required.

Management of peritonitis in the critically ill patient

Severe secondary peritonitis carries significant mortality, despite advancements in critical care support and other therapies. Surgical management requires a multidisciplinary approach to guide the timing and the number of interventions necessary to eradicate the septic foci and create optimal healing with the fewest complications. Research is needed regarding the best surgical strategy for very severe cases. The use of deferred primary anastomosis seems safe in patients presenting with hemodynamic instability and hypoperfusion. These patients have a high risk of anastomotic failure and fistula formation. Allowing for aggressive resuscitation and judicious assessment of the progression of local inflammation are safe strategies to achieve the highest success and minimize serious and protracted complications in patients who survive the initial septic insult.

Colon and rectal injuries

PURPOSE

This study was designed to develop treatment algorithms for colon, rectal, and anal injuries based on the review of relevant literature.

METHODS

Information was obtained through a MEDLINE ( www.nobi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi ) search, and additional references were obtained through cross-referencing key articles cited in these papers.

RESULTS

A total of 203 articles were considered relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of penetrating and blunt colon, rectal, and anal injuries has evolved during the past 150 years. Since the World War II mandate to divert penetrating colon injuries, primary repair or resection and anastomosis have found an increasing role in patients with nondestructive injuries. A critical review of recent literature better defines the role of primary repair and fecal diversion for these injuries and allows for better algorithms for the management of these injuries.

[Current situation of colorectal trauma]

Mortality from colorectal trauma decreased from the end of the 19th Century, when death was the rule, to the 21st Century, when mortality is 5%. The greatest advances were produced during wars, mainly due to improved transport conditions, antisepsis, advances in operating and anesthetic techniques, the management of fluids, blood and blood products, the use of antibiotics, exteriorization of wounds, and the use of colostomy. Injuries to the anus, rectum and colon are infrequent. Their prevalence is difficult to establish because they can be caused by several factors. In Spain, the most frequent causes are traffic accidents and iatrogenic lesions, while in America the most common causes are stab or gunshot wounds. Although the etiology of these injuries is diverse, two major groups of colorectal trauma can be established: accidental injuries and iatrogenic trauma. Clinical symptoms vary, ranging from abdominal, pelvic, perianal or anal pain, sometimes associated with rectorrhagia, to peritonismus or shock. Diagnosis is based on physical and rectal examination and laboratory, radiological, and endoscopic investigations. Laparoscopy can also be used on occasions. Treatment should be individualized, depending on the patient's history, current status, the time elapsed since injury, the status of the injured intestine, the degree of fecal contamination, associated lesions, and the surgeon's experience.

New trends in the management of colonic trauma

BACKGROUND

The management of colon trauma seems to have swung from the "diversion dogma" to a more liberal use of primary repair. However, there are still debatable issues, regarding the management of destructive injuries of the left colon.

METHODS

A review of the current literature on the management of colon trauma was performed using PubMed, with secondary references obtained from key articles.

CONCLUSION

There is strong evidence from prospective randomised trials that the vast majority of colonic injuries can be safely managed by primary repair. It seems, however, that there is a limited role for colostomy, particularly in high-risk patients with destructive injuries of the left colon. The final decision should be based on available scientific evidence in combination with personal experience and clinical judgement on the given patient.

Das Abdominaltrauma

Blunt abdominal trauma is much more frequent than penetrating abdominal trauma in Europe. As a consequence of improved quality of computed tomography, even complex liver injuries are increasingly being treated conservatively. However, missed hollow viscus injuries still remain a problem, as they considerably increase mortality in multiply injured patients. Laparoscopy decreases the rate of unnecessary laparotomies in perforating abdominal trauma and helps to diagnose injuries of solid organs and the diaphragm. However, the sensitivity in detecting hollow viscus injuries is low and the role of laparoscopy in blunt abdominal injury has not been defined. If intra-abdominal bleeding is difficult to control in hemodynamically unstable patients, damage control surgery with packing of the liver, total splenectomy, and provisional closure of hollow viscus injuries is of importance. Definitive surgical treatment follows hemodynamic stabilization and restoration of hemostasis. Injuries of the duodenum and pancreas after blunt abdominal trauma are often associated with other intra-abdominal injuries and the treatment depends on their location and severity.

One-stage resection without colonic lavage in emergency surgery of the left colon

OBJECTIVE

Intra-operative colonic lavage is a widespread procedure introduced to decompress and clean the colon of its faecal load during emergency surgery of the left colon in order to perform a safe anastomosis. This type of lavage is never performed at our institution. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and acceptability of emergency left-sided colectomy without colonic lavage in a consecutive series of patients admitted at our department for perforation and obstruction of the left colon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All 44 patients (29 with obstruction and 15 with perforation) on whom a one-stage left-sided colon resection was performed without colonic lavage between January 1998 and June 2004 were evaluated in a retrospective review. During this period all patients with acute disease of the left colon underwent a one stage resection without colonic lavage. The only exclusion criteria for anastomosis were: haemodynamic instability, ASA > 3, unresectable tumour. Death, anastomotic leakage and wound infection were main outcome measures.

RESULT

The leak rate was 4.5% and mortality 2.3% due to one case of postoperative myocardial infarction. A 16% morbidity rate was recorded due to 4 wound infections and 3 minor complications.

CONCLUSION

The procedure is safe. The low morbidity and mortality of one stage resection without colonic lavage can justify future prospective studies enrolling a large number of patients to compare its results with those obtained by one stage resection with colonic lavage.

Elective intestinal operations in infants and children without mechanical bowel preparation: a pilot study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective intestinal operations has been a long accepted practice. However, MBP is often unpleasant and time-consuming for patients, and clinical trials in adults have not shown improved outcomes. We conducted this pilot study to test whether omitting MBP before elective intestinal operations in infants and children would increase the risk of infectious or anastomotic complications.

METHODS

Retrospective review was performed of 143 patients who had an elective colon or distal small bowel procedure performed at our children's hospital between 1990 and 2003.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients (No PREP) were managed by a single surgeon who routinely omitted MBP, whereas another 110 patients (PREP) were prepared with enemas, laxatives, or both. Both groups received 24 hours of preoperative dietary restriction to clear liquids and perioperative parenteral antibiotics. The No PREP group had one anastomotic leak and no wound infections, whereas the PREP group had 2 anastomotic leaks and 1 wound infection (P = .58). These results occurred despite greater duration of antibiotic therapy and incidence of delayed wound closures in the PREP group.

CONCLUSION

The results of this pilot study suggest that omitting MBP before elective intestinal operations in infants and children carries no increased risk of infectious or anastomotic complications. Eliminating MBP may reduce health care costs and inconvenience to patients. These findings warrant a large, prospective, randomized clinical trial to validate our findings and to investigate further the necessity of MBP in the pediatric population.

Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is performed routinely before colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the outcome of patients who underwent elective left-sided colorectal surgery with or without MBP.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for elective left-sided colorectal resection with primary anastomosis were randomized to preoperative MBP (3 litres of polyethylene glycol) (group 1) or surgery without MBP (group 2). Postoperative abdominal infectious complications and extra-abdominal morbidity were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three patients were included in the study, 78 in group 1 and 75 in group 2. Demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The overall rate of abdominal infectious complications (anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis and wound infection) was 22 per cent in group 1 and 8 per cent in group 2 (P = 0.028). Anastomotic leak occurred in five patients (6 per cent) in group 1 and one (1 per cent) in group 2 (P = 0.210) [corrected] Extra-abdominal morbidity rates were 24 and 11 per cent respectively (P = 0.034). Hospital stay was longer for patients who had MBP (mean(s.d.) 14.9(13.1) versus 9.9(3.8) days; P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Elective left-sided colorectal surgery without MBP is safe and is associated with reduced postoperative morbidity.

Fatores de risco no tratamento de lesões do ceco com sutura primária em ratos

Objetivo: O presente trabalho teve como objetivo avaliar os resultados da sutura primária no tratamento das lesões traumáticas de ceco em ratos, após exposição a intervalos de tempo crescentes entre o trauma e a cirurgia, e com diferentes graus de peritonite. Métodos: Em estudo randomizado, duplo-cego, 96 ratos Wistar, machos, com peso variando de 200 a 250 gramas, foram submetidos a laparotomia, em que se realizava lesão de 5 milímetros de diâmetro na borda contramesentérica do ceco. Em 12 animais do grupo-controle realizava-se de imediato sutura primária com pontos totais, separados, com fio de polipropileno 7.0. Nos demais grupos, com 12 animais cada, a laparotomia para reparo da lesão foi realizada após intervalos de: 30 minutos, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 e 12 horas. No momento do reparo da lesão, uma das suas bordas era ressecada e enviada para exame anatomopatológico. Foi feito controle diário no pós-operatório, atentando-se para a presença de complicações, em especial deiscência da sutura, sendo a eutanásia dos animais realizada no 1º, 4º, 7º e 14º dia de pós-operatório. Em todos animais foi realizada necropsia, atentando-se aos achados macroscópicos e microscópicos do local da sutura. Resultados: Não houve associação entre a demora para o tratamento cirúrgico da lesão e a evolução para graus mais avançados de peritonite. A mortalidade nos 14 animais com peritonite difusa foi de 100%. A mortalidade global foi de 25% (24 animais), sendo que 6 animais (25% dos óbitos) morreram antes do tratamento. Nenhum dos animais tratados que evoluíram a óbito teve complicação relacionada com a sutura da lesão. Os óbitos foram precoces, decorrentes de peritonite e sepse. Entre os 72 ratos sobreviventes, observou-se deiscência da sutura em 9 animais (12,5%). A ocorrência desta complicação foi maior em animais operados a partir da sexta hora após o trauma, sendo os resultados estatisticamente significativos. A incidência de deiscência também foi maior nos ratos que apresentavam contaminação fecal mais intensa da cavidade peritoneal. A intensidade da peritonite no momento da sutura observada no exame histológico não teve associação com a ocorrência de complicações da sutura primária. Conclusão: A sutura primária é um procedimento de risco para tratar ratos, transcorrido intervalo superior a seis horas após o trauma, ou na vigência de contaminação intensa da cavidade por fezes.

The conundrum of traumatic colon injury

BACKGROUND

Surgical care in the case of traumatic injury to the colon has changed significantly. During World War II, diversion was dictum. Current trends favor primary repair.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of traumatic colon injuries at an urban level 1 trauma center was performed. Multiple data points were collected. Colon-related complications were examined in detail.

RESULTS

Seventy-four charts fulfilled inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were treated with primary repair. The median Colon Injury Scale (CIS) grade was 2, and the average Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index (PATI) score was 19. Patients repaired by diversion suffered more colon-related complications; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The emerging dictum for traumatic colon injuries is primary repair. Questions remain as to whether primary repair is the safest option for all colon injuries. The PATI score, CIS grade, and multiple other factors should be included in the decision making algorithm with an emphasis on primary repair.

A ten-year study of penetrating injuries of the colon

BACKGROUND

Colon injury has been associated with a high risk of septic complications and mortality. We prospectively studied the pattern, management, outcome, and prognostic factors in patients who sustained penetrating colon injuries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty patients who presented to our hospital with penetrating colon injuries over a ten-year period (1992 to 2001) were studied.

RESULTS

Colon wounds were caused by gunshots in 55 (91.7 percent) patients and knife stabs in 5 (8.3 percent). There was a delay of more than 12 hours before laparotomy in 30 (50 percent) patients. Moderate or major fecal contamination of the peritoneal cavity occurred in 58 (96.7 percent) patients. The average penetrating abdominal trauma index score was 25.9 and 20 (33.3 percent) patients sustained Flint Grade 3 colon injury. Associated intra-abdominal injuries occurred in the small bowel (73.3 percent), liver (25 percent), stomach (23.3 percent), and mesentery (16.7 percent). Right colon wounds (35) were managed by primary repair in 24 (68.6 percent) patients and proximal diverting colostomy in 11 (31.4 percent), whereas left colon wounds (25) were managed by diverting colostomy in 22 (88.0 percent) patients and primary repair in 3 (12.0 percent) patients. Common complications included wound infection (56.7 percent), septicemia (31.7 percent), and enterocutaneous fistula (16.7 percent). The overall mortality rate was 33.3 percent and colon injury-related mortality was 21.7 percent. Presence of destructive colon injury was associated with a greater than fourfold increased incidence of death. Other significant risk factors included shock on admission, major fecal contamination, duration of operation more than four hours, penetrating abdominal trauma index score >25, and more than two postoperative complications. There was no difference in outcome between patients who had primary repair and those undergoing diverting colostomy. Colostomy closure-related morbidity was 21 percent and mortality was 5.3 percent.

CONCLUSION

A more liberal use of primary repair is required in our patients with penetrating injuries of the colon.

Hollow viscous injury in the pediatric patient

Injuries to the gastrointestinal tract account for 1% to 15% of intraabdominal injuries in children. Most hollow visceral injuries occur following some form of blunt trauma and motor vehicle accidents remain the most common mechanism of injury. The diagnosis of blunt intestinal injury is difficult and often delayed. Current imaging modalities are imprecise and contribute to delay. Delay is associated with morbidity and mortality in both children and adults, but the length of delay remains controversial. The purpose of this review is to examine the current diagnosis and management of hollow visceral injury in children.

Repair of full-thickness bowel injury

OBJECTIVE

Colon surgery is more and more often performed in complex situations such as after trauma, under immunosuppression, or in the elderly. Even under optimal conditions, anastomosis fails in certain situations. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the normal phases of bowel healing and to review the local and systemic factors affecting healing with special attention to critical care variables such as major surgery, acute hemorrhage, and infections.

DATA SOURCE

MEDLINE cited and/or published articles.

DESIGN

Review analysis.

RESULTS

Colon healing is a structured cascade of different phases that can be affected by a multitude of local (infection, ischemia) and systemic (diabetes, malnutrition, anemia, hypothermia, trauma) factors. The normal phases of repair, the resulting bursting pressure as an experimental index of healing, and the available published data on local and systemic factors affecting healing are summarized.

CONCLUSION

Several local and systemic factors negatively affect bowel healing; there is still a small portion of patients who fail to heal, suggesting that intrinsic factors need to be analyzed.

Colon and rectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation: a randomized prospective trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether elective colon and rectal surgery can be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Mechanical bowel preparation is routinely done before colon and rectal surgery, aimed at reducing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. However, in cases of penetrating colon trauma, primary colonic anastomosis has proven to be safe even though the bowel is not prepared.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections with primary anastomosis were prospectively randomized into two groups. Group A had mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol before surgery, and group B had their surgery without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Patients were followed up for 30 days for wound, anastomotic, and intra-abdominal infectious complications.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty patients were included in the study, 187 in group A and 193 in group B. Demographic characteristics, indications for surgery, and type of surgical procedure did not significantly differ between the two groups. Colo-colonic or colorectal anastomosis was performed in 63% of the patients in group A and 66% in group B. There was no difference in the rate of surgical infectious complications between the two groups. The overall infectious complications rate was 10.2% in group A and 8.8% in group B. Wound infection, anastomotic leak, and intra-abdominal abscess occurred in 6.4%, 3.7%, and 1.1% versus 5.7%, 2.1%, and 1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that elective colon and rectal surgery may be safely performed without mechanical preparation.

The morbidity of penetrating colon injury

The purpose of this study is to define the current morbidity and mortality associated with penetrating colon injury and to determine the impact of management strategy on outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all penetrating colon injuries managed at a level I trauma center (1990-2000), n=186. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine the independent predictors for colostomy and morbidity following colon injury.

RESULTS

Fifty-three percent of the patients were managed with primary repair or anastomosis while 47% received a colostomy. Independent predictors of colostomy included gunshot wound (GSW), degree of peritoneal contamination, and location of injury. The complication rate for patients requiring a colostomy was 57% versus 42% for the primary repair group, P=0.01. When adjusted for injury severity and hypotension, the presence of a colostomy was not associated with a significant increase in the complication rate (OR 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-3.25). Independent predictors for the development of intra-abdominal abscess were hypotension on admission (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1-5.8) and penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI) score >25 (OR 4.2, 95% CI: 2.0-8.9). The complication rate for colostomy takedown was 17%.

CONCLUSION

Penetrating colon injury carries a high rate of infectious morbidity. The development of infectious complications is related to the injury severity and haemodynamic status of the patient, not the type of operation performed.

Randomized clinical trial to determine if delay from time of penetrating colonic injury precludes primary repair

BACKGROUND

There is often a delay of more than 12 h in transferring patients with penetrating colonic injury from outlying hospitals to a regional referral centre. The aim of this prospective study was to determine whether primary suture of a penetrating colonic injury in the presence of delayed presentation, shock, peritoneal contamination or associated injuries leads to increased morbidity and mortality rates.

METHODS

Patients with penetrating colonic injuries were randomized to primary closure or colostomy. Patients were compared with regard to interval from injury to operation, associated injuries, duration of operation, postoperative complications and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty patients were seen over a 69-month period. The interval from injury to operation ranged from 3 to 56 h, and was similar in the two treatment groups. Postoperative complications were similar in the two groups but there were significant differences in operation time (mean(s.d.) 127.1(45.8) min for primary repair and 142.3(43.0) min for colostomy; P = 0.009) and length of hospital stay (mean (range) 9 (6-56) versus 26 (13-64) days respectively; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Delay from time of penetrating colonic injury is not a contraindication to primary repair. :

Colon trauma: Royal Melbourne Hospital experience

BACKGROUND

Recent studies from the USA and South Africa suggest that primary repair or resection and primary anastomosis have become the recommended treatment for most traumatic colon injuries. The aim of the present review is to determine the applicability of these studies to the urban Australian setting.

METHODS

All patients with colon injuries operated on at the Royal Melbourne Hospital from March 1989 to March 1999 were identified. Data were collected by a retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients sustained 26 injuries to the colon. Blunt injuries were more common than penetrating injuries (14 vs 6). Significant other injuries occurred in 15 patients. Colostomies were performed in four patients. The overall mortality rate was 10%. There were no anastomotic leaks. Primary repair or resection and primary anastomosis were not associated with any increase in intra-abdominal complications.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from large trauma centres supporting primary repair or resection and primary anastomosis is also applicable to regions that have a low rate of traumatic colon injury.

Primary repair for penetrating colon injuries

BACKGROUND

Primary repair of penetrating colon injuries is an appealing management option, however uncertainty about its safety persists.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare the morbidity and mortality of primary repair to fecal diversion in the management of penetrating colon injuries using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to November 2001), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and EMBASE using the terms colon, penetrating, injury, colostomy, prospective, and randomized.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of primary repair versus fecal diversion in the management of penetrating colon injuries. Five studies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reviewers performed data extraction independently. Outcomes evaluated from each trial included mortality, total complications, infectious complications, intra-abdominal infections, wound complications, penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI), and length of stay. Peto odds ratios for combined effect were calculated with a 95% confidence interval for each outcome. Heterogeneity was assessed for each outcome using a chi-squared test.

MAIN RESULTS

The Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index (PATI) of included subjects did not significantly differ between studies. Mortality was not significantly different between groups (OR 1.70, 95% CI 0.51,5.66). However, total complications (OR 0.28 95% CI 0.18,0.42), total infectious complications (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27, 0.63), abdominal infections including dehiscence (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38,0.94), abdominal infections excluding dehiscence (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.31,0.86), wound complications including dehiscence (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34,0.89), and wound complications excluding dehiscence (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25,0.76) all significantly favored primary repair.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of currently published randomized controlled trials favors primary repair over fecal diversion for penetrating colon injuries.

Bowel preparation for colorectal surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess recent literature regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy and surgery.

METHODS

The study was conducted by an Index Medicus English-language search of articles relevant to both oral mechanical and parenteral and oral antibiotic preparation for elective colorectal surgery and mechanical bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The study period was from 1975 to 2000. In addition, studies of elective colorectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation were also considered.

RESULTS

Although several recent prospective, randomized trials have suggested that elective colorectal surgery can be safely performed without any mechanical bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation remains the standard of care, at least in North America at the present time. A recent survey of the members of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons revealed that the majority currently use sodium phosphate for bowel preparation and use a dual oral antibiotic regimen before elective colorectal surgery, combined with two doses of parenteral antibiotics. Although some of the use patterns are based on prospective, randomized study, others seem founded strictly on habit and theory.

CONCLUSIONS

The current methods of bowel cleansing for both colonoscopy and surgery include sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol; colorectal surgeons practicing in North America currently prefer sodium phosphate. Additional preparation for colorectal surgery includes perioperative parenteral antibiotics and, to a slightly lesser degree, preoperative oral antibiotic preparation. Although some recent prospective, randomized studies have suggested that omission of mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery is not only feasible but potentially preferable, caution is recommended before routinely omitting these widely practiced measures, because data to support such routine omission are limited.

Evolving concepts in the management of colonic injury

PURPOSE

The management of colonic injury has changed in recent years. This study sought to evaluate current surgical management of injuries to the colon in a busy urban trauma centre, in the light of our increasing confidence in primary repair and evolving understanding of the concepts and practice of damage control surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of consecutive patients presenting with colonic injury from January 1 to December 31 1998. Patients without full-thickness lesions of the colon were excluded, as were patients who died within 24 h of admission. Demographic data, wounding patterns and clinical course were studied.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven patients were analyzed. Management without colostomy was achieved in 84% of cases. Patients who underwent diversion of the faecal stream had increased morbidity and hospital stay compared to equivalent patients who were repaired primarily. The important subgroup of patients who underwent damage control or abbreviated laparotomy is discussed.

CONCLUSION

This study further strengthens the validity of direct repair or resection and primary anastomosis for colonic injury. Strategies to deal with the subgroup of patients at very high risk of postoperative complications are suggested.

Further Evaluation of Colostomy in Penetrating Colon Injury

Our objective was to compare, in a randomized prospective format, complication rates associated with primary repair versus fecal diversion in penetrating colon injury. During a 72-month period, 181 patients with penetrating colon injuries were entered in a randomized prospective study at an urban Level I trauma center. After intraoperative identification of colon injuries, patients were randomized to a primary repair or a diversion group. Randomization was independent of previously identified risk factors, including severity of colon injury, presence of hypotension, blood loss, extent of fecal contamination, and time from injury to operation. Five patients initially entered in the study protocol were removed because they died in the immediate postoperative period (< 24 hours). One hundred seventy-six patients were studied, of which 89 were randomized to primary repair and 87 to diversion. The average age in the diversion group was 26.4 years and it was 28.0 years in the primary repair group ( P > 0.05). The average Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index for the diversion group was 22.3, and it was 23.7 for the primary repair group ( P > 0.05). There were 18 (21%) septic related complications in the diversion group and 16 (18%) in the primary repair group ( P > .05). With respect to risk factors, complication rates were not higher in one study group versus the other. We conclude that, in the civilian population, all penetrating colon injuries should be managed with primary repair.

Complications and recommended practices for electrosurgery in laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Electrosurgery is one of the most commonly used energy systems in laparoscopic surgery. Two major categories of potential complications related to electrosurgery in laparoscopy are mechanical trauma and electrothermal injury. The latter can result from unrecognized energy transfer in the operational field or, less commonly, to unnoticed stray current outside the laparoscopic field of view. Stray current can result from insulation failure, direct coupling, or capacitive coupling.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature concerning essential biophysics of electrosurgery, including electrosurgical waveform differentiation, tissue effect, and variables that determine tissue effect. The incidence of electrosurgical injuries and possible mechanisms responsible for the injuries are discussed. Different types of injuries may result in different clinical manifestations and histopathological findings. Gross and microscopic pathological check-ups of the injury sites may distinguish between different mechanisms, and thus provide further clues postoperatively.

RESULTS

Several recommended practices are proposed to avoid electrosurgical injury laparoscopically. To achieve electrosurgical safety and to prevent electrosurgical injuries, the surgical team should have a good understanding of the biophysics of electrosurgery, the basis of equipment and general tissue effects, as well as the surgeon's spatial orientation and hand-eye coordination. Some intraoperative adjuvant procedures and newly developed safety devices have become available may aid to improve electrosurgical safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of the biophysics of electrosurgery and the mechanisms of electrosurgical injury is important in recognizing potential complications of electrosurgery in laparoscopy. Procedures for prevention, intraoperative adjuvant maneuvers, early recognition of the injury with in-time salvage treatment, and alertness to postoperative warning signs can help reduce such complications.

Influência do tempo transcorrido entre a lesão do cólon e a síntese no processo de cicatrização

O tratamento das lesões do cólon têm se modificado com relação à escolha da técnica do reparo primário à colostomia e ao reparo secundário. Entre os fatores de risco para síntese primária está o tempo transcorrido. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar as interferências do tempo transcorrido entre a feitura da lesão e a síntese, sobre o processo de cicatrização. Para isto utilizaram-se 80 ratos Wistar PUC-PR. Sob anestesia inalatória confeccionou-se uma lesão no cólon esquerdo compromentendo 50% da circunferência da intestinal. Após 12, 18 e 24 horas procedeu-se à síntese. Comparou-se estas colorrafias com as realizadas imediatamente após a lesão. Avaliaram-se as cicatrizes com 4 e 7 dias, verificando-se a existência de deiscências, a capacidade de suportar pressão e a síntese de colágeno. Registrou-se o óbito de 5 ratos. Encontrou-se peritonites nos 3 grupos de experimento que comparadas ao controle mostraram alta significância, para o grupo B (p=0,0018), para o C (p=0,0033) e para o D (p=0,000008)q Deiscências se fizeram presentes 19 vezes, tendo sido significante no grupo de 24 horas (p=0,000002). A quantidade de colágeno maturo (tipo I), no 4.º dia é semelhante ao controle no grupo de 12 e 18 horas e menor no grupo de 24 horas (p<0,05). No 7.º dia é menor no grupo de 18 horas (p<0,05) e no de 24 horas (p=0,00001). Havia menor concentração de colágeno imaturo (tipo III) no grupo de 24 horas no 4.º dia (p=0,000268) e no 7.º dia nos grupos de 18 horas (p=0,0009) e de 24 horas (p=0,000009). Conclui-se que as sínteses retardadas com mais de 12 horas, no cólon esquerdo aumentam a morbidade e retardam a maturação do colágeno.