The role of primary repair for colonic injuries in wartime

Injury Patterns and Treatment Strategies in Civilian and Military Isolated Abdominal Gunshot Wounds

BACKGROUND

Combat-related gunshot wounds (GSW) may differ from those found in civilian trauma centers. Missile velocity, resources, logistics, and body armor may affect injury patterns and management strategies. This study compares injury patterns, management, and outcomes in isolated abdominal GSW between military (MIL) and civilian (CIV) populations.

METHODS

The Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR) and TQIP databases were queried for patients with isolated abdominal GSW from 2013 to 2016. MIL patients were propensity score matched 1:3 based on age, sex, and extraabdominal AIS. Injury patterns and in-hospital outcomes were compared. Initial operative management strategies, including selective nonoperative management (SNOM) for isolated solid organ injuries, were also compared.

RESULTS

Of the 6435 patients with isolated abdominal GSW, 183 (3%) MIL were identified and matched with 549 CIV patients. The MIL group had more hollow viscus injuries (84% vs. 66%) while the CIV group had more vascular injuries (10% vs. 21%) (p < .05 for both). Operative strategy differed, with more MIL patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy (95% vs. 82%) and colectomy (72% vs. 52%) (p < .05 for both). However, no difference in ostomy creation was appreciated. More SNOM for isolated solid organ injuries was performed in the CIV group (34.1% vs. 12.5%; p < 0.05). In-hospital outcomes, including mortality, were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIL abdominal GSW lead to higher rates of hollow viscus injuries compared to CIV GSW. MIL GSW are more frequently treated with resection but with similar ostomy creation compared to civilian GSW. SNOM of solid organ injuries is infrequently performed following MIL GSW.

Penetrating gluteal injuries in North West London: a retrospective cohort study and initial management guideline

Background

Penetrating gluteal injuries (PGIs) are an increasingly common presentation to major trauma centers (MTCs) in the UK and especially in London. PGIs can be associated with mortality and significant morbidity. There is a paucity of consistent guidance on how best to investigate and manage these patients.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed by interrogating prospectively collected patient records for PGI presenting to a level 1 MTC in London between 2017 and 2019.

Results

There were 125 presentations with PGI, accounting for 6.86% of all penetrating injuries. Of these, 95.2% (119) were male, with a median age of 21 (IQR 18–29), and 20.80% (26) were under 18. Compared with the 3 years prior to this study, the number of PGI increased by 87%. The absolute risk (AR) of injury to a significant structure was 27.20%; the most frequently injured structure was a blood vessel (17.60%), followed by the rectum (4.80%) and the urethra (1.60%). The AR by anatomic quadrant of injury was highest in the lower inner quadrant (56%) and lowest in the upper outer quadrant (14%). CT scanning had an overall sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 92.38% in identifying rectal injury.

Discussion

The anatomic quadrant of injury can be helpful in stratifying risk of rectal and urethral injuries when assessing a patient in the emergency department. Given the low sensitivity in identifying rectal injury on initial CT, this data supports assesing any patients considered at high risk of rectal injury with an examination under general anesthetic with or without rigid sigmoidoscopy. The pathway has created a clear tool that optimizes investigation and treatment, minimizing the likelihood of missed injury or unnecessary use of resources. It therefore represents a potential pathway other centers receiving a similar trauma burden could consider adopting.

Level of evidence

2b.

Traumatic colorectal injuries in children: The National Trauma Database experience

PURPOSE

We sought to utilize a nationwide database to characterize colorectal injuries in pediatric trauma.

METHODS

The National Trauma Database (NTDB) was queried for all patients (age≤14years) with colorectal injuries from 2013 to 2014. We stratified patients by demographics and measured outcomes. We analyzed groups based on mechanism, colon vs rectal injury, as well as colostomy creation. Statistical analysis was conducted using t-test and ANOVA for continuous variables as well as chi-square for continuous variables.

RESULTS

There were 534 pediatric patients who sustained colorectal trauma. The mean ISS was 15.6±0.6 with an average LOS of 8.5±0.5days. 435 (81.5%) were injured by blunt mechanism while 99 (18.5%) were injured by penetrating mechanism. There were no differences between age, ISS, complications, mortality, LOS, ICU LOS, and ventilator days between blunt and penetrating groups. Significantly more patients in the penetrating group had associated small intestine and hepatic injuries as well as underwent colostomies. Patients with rectal injuries (25.7%) were more likely to undergo colonic diversion (p<0.0001), but also had decreased mortality (p=0.001) and decreased LOS (p=0.01). Patients with colostomies (9.9%) had no differences in age, ISS, GCS, transfusion of blood products, and complications compared to patients who did not receive a colostomy. Despite this, colostomy patients had significantly increased hospital LOS (12.1±1.8 vs 8.2±0.5days, p=0.02) and ICU LOS (9.0±1.7 vs 5.4±0.3days, p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Although infrequent, colorectal injuries in children are associated with considerable morbidity regardless of mechanism and may be managed without fecal diversion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

STUDY TYPE

Epidemiology.

The management of penetrating rectal and anal trauma: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic injuries to the lower gastrointestinal tract (rectum and anus) have been largely reported in the military setting with sparse publications from the civilian setting. Additionally, there remains a lack of international consensus regarding definitive treatment pathways. This systematic review aimed to assess the current literature and propose a standardised treatment algorithm to aid management in the civilian setting.

METHODS

A systematic review of available literature from 1999 to 2016 that was performed. Primary endpoints were the assessment and surgical management of reported rectal and anal trauma.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in this review, reporting on 1255 patients. 96.3% had rectal trauma and 3.7% had anal trauma. Gunshot wounds are the most common mechanism of injury (46.9%). The overwhelming majority of injuries occurred in males (>85%) and were associated with other pelvic injuries. Surgical management has substantially evolved over the last five decades, with no clear consensus on best management strategies.

CONCLUSION

There remains significant international discrepancy regarding the management of penetrating trauma to the rectum. Key management principals include the varying use of the direct primary closure, faecal diversion, pre-sacral drainage and/or distal rectal washout (rarely used). To date, there is sparse evidence regarding the management of penetrating anal trauma.

Abdominal injuries in communal crises: The Jos experience

Background:

Abdominal injuries contribute significantly to battlefield trauma morbidity and mortality. This study sought to determine the incidence, demographics, clinical features, spectrum, severity, management, and outcome of abdominal trauma during a civilian conflict.

Materials and Methods:

A prospective analysis of patients treated for abdominal trauma during the Jos civil crises between December 2010 and May 2012 at the Jos University Teaching Hospital.

Results:

A total of 109 victims of communal conflicts with abdominal injuries were managed during the study period with 89 (81.7%) males and 20 (18.3%) females representing about 12.2% of the total 897 combat related injuries. The peak age incidence was between 21 and 40 years (range: 3–71 years). The most frequently injured intra-abdominal organs were the small intestine 69 (63.3%), colon 48 (44%), and liver 41 (37.6%). Forty-four (40.4%) patients had extra-abdominal injuries involving the chest in 17 (15.6%), musculoskeletal 12 (11%), and the head in 9 (8.3%). The most prevalent weapon injuries were gunshot 76 (69.7%), explosives 12 (11%), stab injuries 11 (10.1%), and blunt abdominal trauma 10 (9.2%). The injury severity score varied from 8 to 52 (mean: 20.8) with a fatality rate of 11 (10.1%) and morbidity rate of 29 (26.6%). Presence of irreversible shock, 3 or more injured intra-abdominal organs, severe head injuries, and delayed presentation were the main factors associated with mortality.

Conclusion:

Abdominal trauma is major life-threatening injuries during conflicts. Substantial mortality occurred with loss of nearly one in every 10 hospitalized victims despite aggressive emergency room resuscitation. The resources expenditure, propensity for death and expediency of timing reinforce the need for early access to the wounded in a concerted trauma care systems.

A solution to the negative effects of splenectomy during colorectal trauma and surgery: an experimental study on splenic autotransplantation to the groin area

BACKGROUND

Splenectomy after combined colosplenic trauma or iatrogenic splenic injury during colorectal surgery associates with worse short- and long-term outcomes, including reduced survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Splenic autotransplantation may improve the outcomes of such patients. Omental splenic transplantation is the standard procedure but may be difficult when performing laparoscopic colorectal surgery or when total or subtotal omentectomy is required. This animal model study was performed to evaluate the impact of splenic autotransplantation to the groin area on colonic wound healing.

METHODS

Thirty rats were divided into three groups of ten animals. One group underwent colon anastomosis and sham splenectomy, the second underwent colon anastomosis and splenectomy, and the third underwent colon anastomosis, splenectomy, and intramuscular autotransplantation of the spleen. On postoperative day 7, anastomotic healing was evaluated by measuring bursting pressure and hydroxyproline levels. The third group was subjected to scintigraphy before sacrifice to assess whether the transplant was functional.

RESULTS

The mortality rates of the sham, splenectomized, and transplanted animals were 0 %, 30 %, and 20 %, respectively: the splenectomized animals had significantly lower mean bursting pressures than the other two groups (p = 0.002). The mean hydroxyproline levels of the three groups were 467.4, 335.3, and 412.7 mg hydroxyproline/g protein, respectively (p = 0.0856). Nine of the ten transplanted animals (90 %) had splenic activity on scintigraphy.

CONCLUSIONS

Splenectomy impaired the healing of the colonic anastomosis. This effect was largely reversed by splenic autotransplantation. Intramuscular autotransplantation to the groin area appears to be feasible and effective.

Immediate Versus Delayed Repair of Destructive Bowel Injuries in Patients with an Open Abdomen

Trauma surgeons frequently encounter destructive bowel injuries. The timing of the repair of the bowel injury should be performed in patients with planned open abdomen management and second-look laparotomy has not been specifically addressed. Our primary objective was to determine if there was a significant difference in the incidence of major complications between immediate and delayed repair among patients with traumatic bowel injuries and planned open abdomens. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with traumatic bowel injuries treated between 2001 and 2011 and who underwent laparotomy and were left with an open abdomen with a planned second operation. Pediatric patients (age less than 15 years) and patients who died in the first 24 hours of admission were excluded. The primary exposure of interest was dichotomously defined based on either definitive repair of the bowel injury during the initial trauma operation (immediate) or definitive repair during a subsequent surgery (delayed). Major complications were defined as enterocutaneous fistula, dehiscence, and abscess. Ninety-two patients met study eligibility. Of these, 50 (54%) underwent immediate bowel repair. Univariate analysis suggested no significant differences in the proportion of major complications between the two groups. After adjusting for Injury Severity Score, penetrating injury, initial base deficit, and presence of colon injury, there was no statistical difference in incidence of major complications between the two groups. Patients undergoing immediate versus delayed repair of traumatic bowel injuries and who are left with an open abdomen have comparable outcomes in terms of major complications.

The prevention of colorectal anastomotic leakage with tissue adhesives in a contaminated environment is associated with the presence of anti-inflammatory macrophages

BACKGROUND

Colorectal anastomoses created in a contaminated environment result in a high leakage rate. This study investigated whether using anastomotic sealants (TissuCol(®), Histoacryl(®) Flex, and Duraseal(®)) prevents leakage in a rat peritonitis model.

STUDY DESIGN

Sixty-seven Wistar rats were divided into control and experimental groups (TissuCol, Histoacryl, and Duraseal groups). Peritonitis was induced 1 day before surgery with the cecal ligation puncture model. On day 0, colonic anastomosis was constructed with sutures and then sealed with no adhesive (control group) or one select adhesive (experimental groups). Bursting pressure, abscess formation, and adhesion severity were evaluated on day 3 or day 14. Hematoxylin and eosin staining and immunohistochemical staining for CD4, CD8, CD206, and iNOS were performed.

RESULTS

On day 3, bursting pressures of the TissuCol group (120.1 ± 25.3 mmHg), Histoacryl group (117.3 ± 20.2 mmHg), and Duraseal group (123.6 ± 35.4 mmHg) were significantly higher than the that of the control group (24.4 ± 31.7 mmHg, p < 0.001). Abscesses around the anastomosis were found in the control group (6/7) and Duraseal group (2/9) but not in the TissuCol group or Histoacryl group. A higher number of CD206+ cells (M2 macrophages), a lower number of iNOS+ cells (M1 macrophages), a higher M2/M1 index, and a higher CD4+/CD8+ index were seen at the anastomotic site in all experimental groups compared with the control group on day 3. On day 14, abscesses were only found in the control group. Adhesion severity in the Duraseal group was significantly lower than that in the control group (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anastomotic sealing using TissuCol(®), Histoacryl(®) Flex, or Duraseal(®) seems to be an effective and safe option to prevent leakage in contaminated colorectal surgery. The presence of large numbers of anti-inflammatory macrophages seems to be involved in preventing the leakage.

Primary repair or fecal diversion for colorectal injuries after blast: a medical review

Blast injury is a frequent cause of injury during armed conflicts, and the force of a blast can cause closed colorectal injury and perforation.1 After identification of a blast-related colorectal injury, the surgical options are primary repair or fecal diversion with the option for secondary repair. This structured review was conducted to determine which patients could be treated with primary repair (PR) or with fecal diversion. The review method followed the Prisma Statement method for medical systematic review. All data from the relevant articles were collected in a single database. Articles took into account wars in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan from January 1993 through November 2012. The review was limited due to lack of reported data, hence qualitative analysis was the main review method. The review showed that for patients who do not have associated intra-abdominal injuries (diaphragm, stomach, pancreas, spleen, or kidney) or hemodynamic instability, PR did not result in an increase of complications or mortality.

Historical and current trends in colon trauma

The authors discuss the evolution of the evaluation and management of colonic trauma, as well as the debate regarding primary repair versus fecal diversion. Their evidence-based review covers diagnosis, management, surgical approaches, and perioperative care of patients with colon-related trauma. The management of traumatic colon injuries has evolved significantly over the past 50 years; here the authors describe a practical approach to the treatment and management of traumatic injuries to the colon based on the most current research. However, management of traumatic colon injuries remains a challenge and continues to be associated with significant morbidity. Familiarity with the different methods to the approach and management of colonic injuries will allow surgeons to minimize unnecessary complications and mortality.

Comparing the results penetrating colon injuries based on intervention by surgeons with different levels of experience in West Indies

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have established the safety of primary repair for civilian penetrating colonic injuries with little data exploring the experience of surgeon performing the procedure. Owing to financial, staff and administrative constraints in the developing world, surgeons-in-training sometimes find themselves faced with having to perform major surgery for penetrating colonic injuries with no experienced surgeon in attendance, but available for advice via phone. With this thought, we collected retrospective data to analyse our outcomes based on this practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over a 10-year period 62 patients with penetrating colonic trauma underwent laparotomies with analysis done on 53 cases. Severity of injury, grade of operating surgical staff and outcome were noted. Outcomes of "inexperienced surgeons" and "experienced surgeons" were compared to determine if a difference exists in outcome based on experience or grade of surgeon.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients with penetrating colon injures underwent primary repair and/or anastomosis with 18 (34%) performed by "inexperienced surgeons" and 35 (66%) by "experienced surgeons". There was one death unrelated to colon trauma with an inexperienced surgeon and one anastomotic leak in a patient operated on by an experienced surgeon.

CONCLUSION

This data supports previous reports on the safety of primary repair for penetrating colonic injuries and raises the point that in cases of lower severity of injury inexperienced surgeons have similar results to experienced surgeons with regard to primary repair.

Traumatic injury of the colon and rectum: the evidence vs dogma

BACKGROUND

The treatment of traumatic injuries to the colon and rectum is often driven by dogma, despite the presence of evidence suggesting alternative methods of care.

OBJECTIVE

This is an evidence-based review, in the format of a review article, to determine the ideal treatment of noniatrogenic traumatic injuries to the colon and rectum to improve the care provided to this group of patients. Recommendations and treatment algorithms were based on consensus conclusions of the data.

DATA SOURCES

A search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Collected Reviews was performed from 1965 through December 2010.

STUDY SELECTION

Authors independently reviewed selected abstracts to determine their scientific merit and relevance based on key-word combinations regarding colorectal trauma. A directed search of the embedded references from the primary articles was also performed in select circumstances. We then performed a complete evaluation of 108 articles and 3 additional abstracts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were morbidity, mortality, and colostomy rates.

RESULTS

Evidence-based recommendations and algorithms are presented for the management of traumatic colorectal injuries.

LIMITATIONS

Level I and II evidence was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal injuries remain a challenging clinical entity associated with significant morbidity. Familiarity with the different methods to approach and manage these injuries, including "damage control" tactics when necessary, will allow surgeons to minimize unnecessary complications and mortality.

Optimal clinical timelines--a consensus from the academic department of military surgery and trauma

There are no published studies directly addressing the issue of what is an acceptable timeline from point of wounding to surgical intervention within the military context. The proximal threshold has previously been determined by personal opinion, tactical, logistic and practical imperatives rather than by clinical demands. The aim of this paper is to review all relevant military and civilian studies where timelines have been quoted and to reach a number of unambiguous consensus statements to state the perceived ideal upper limits from point of wounding to holistic and realistic surgical care in modern war. An injured casualty should be transferred to an appropriate surgeon in an appropriate facility in as short a time from wounding as practical. It is clear that the best trauma surgery is performed in large, well resourced, well-supplied, air-conditioned hospitals. Current advances aimed to stretch timelines from wounding to surgical intervention are exciting and hold potential but remain scientifically unproven and are currently without any firm evidence base. Further critical research is therefore necessary. The effect of pre-hospital haemostatic resuscitation, provided by the enhanced Medical Emergency Response Team (MERTe) on patient outcome and effective timelines is currently unknown and unproven: it does have intuitive medical merit. There is also a very significant moral and morale component. MERTe serves two main functions; reduction in time from point of wounding to advanced / haemostatic resuscitation and provision of in-flight diagnostics. Continuation of in-flight resuscitation then allows physician-led decision making on critically unstable casualties. This allows either an expedited straight move from the HLS direct to the operating theatre or direct transfer to a regional neurosurgical centre. To prevent avoidable death,our unequivocal conclusion is that there must be an upper limit of 2 hours from wounding to surgical intervention (surgical haemorrhage control) for all casualties.

Stomas and trauma

The current dogma about the treatment of penetrating colon injuries is reviewed, both from the civilian and the military perspective. This discussion is still evolving, and the time-honored methods of diversion, including colostomy and ileostomy, are still appropriate for the most severe and devastating sorts of wounds, especially in the military context. For the vast majority of penetrating wounds, primary repair works well and should be practiced. For the few patients who have primary repair that fails and leaks, mortality rates are high. The art of surgery involves knowing when to divert and when to repair.

Management of colonic injuries in the combat theater

PURPOSE

Combat injuries are more often associated with blast, penetrating, and high-energy mechanisms than civilian trauma, generating controversy about the management of combat colonic injury. Despite implementation of mandatory colostomy in World War II, recent civilian data suggest that primary repair without diversion is safe and feasible. This study describes the modern management of battle-related colonic injuries and seeks to determine whether management strategy affects early complications.

METHODS

Records from the combat theater (downrange) and tertiary referral center in Germany were retrospectively reviewed from 2005 to 2006. Patient characteristics, management strategy, treatment course, and early complications were recorded. Comparison groups by management strategy were as follows: primary repair, diversion, and damage control.

RESULTS

A total of 133 (97% male) patients sustained colonic injuries from penetrating (71%), blunt (5%), and blast (23%) mechanisms. Average injury severity score was 21 and length of stay in the referral center was 7.1 days. Injury distribution was 21% ascending, 21% descending, 15% transverse, 27% sigmoid, and 25% rectum. Downrange complications for primary repair, initial ostomy, and damage control groups were 14%, 15%, and 30%, respectively. On discharge from the center, 62% of patients had undergone a diversion. The complication rate was 18% overall and was unrelated to management strategy (P = .16). Multivariate analysis did not identify independent predictors of complications.

CONCLUSION

Early complications were similar by mechanism, anatomic location, severity of injury, and management strategy. More diversions were performed for rectosigmoid injury. Good surgical judgment allows for low morbidity and supports primary repair in selected cases. Damage control surgery is effective in a multinational theater of operations.

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.

When Trauma Means a Stoma

Trauma is a leading cause of death and disability. When traumatic injuries require ostomy surgery, the wound, ostomy, and continence nurse acts as a crucial part of the trauma team. This literature review describes mechanisms of injury associated with creation of a stoma, key aspects of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing care in trauma populations and presents suggestions for future research.

[Penetrating injuries to the pelvis]

As criminality and weapon use increase, general and military surgeons are increasingly confronted with penetrating pelvic injuries both at home and on peacekeeping missions. Penetrating injuries to the iliac vascular axis are associated with considerable mortality, and thus the majority of these emergency patients arrive in a state of deep hypovolemic shock. Concomitant bowel injuries are present in one of five cases, resulting in contamination of the damaged area. Surgical options are simple lateral repair, ligation of the veins, temporary shunt insertion, and prosthetic graft interposition in the injured artery. In extremis ligation of the common or external iliac artery may be the only option to save the patient's life. Surgeons must be aware that damage control surgery and related methods may be needed early on to enable patient survival.