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

Evaluation and Management of Traumatic Rectal Injury

Traumatic injury to the rectum is rare but associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, diagnostic and treatment recommendations for these complex injuries have changed. While rare, it is critical for general surgeons to understand the basic principles of injury assessment, damage control, and definitive management of traumatic rectal injuries. This article reviews the literature regarding the evaluation and management of traumatic rectal injuries.

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.

Gunshot injury to the colon by expanding bullets in combat patients wounded in hybrid period of the Russian-Ukrainian war during 2014-2020

BACKGROUND

A gunshot wound to the colon is a frequent injury in armed conflicts. An example of a high-energy modern weapon is hollow-point bullets, which is associated with increased tissue damage and lethal outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate gunshot injuries to the colon in combat patients and to assess the difference in clinical features of patients with colon injuries by hollow-point versus shape-stable bullets.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Analyses of clinical data were performed on 374 male soldiers from the Armed Forces of Ukraine with gunshot abdominal wounds with injury to the colon in East Ukraine between 2014 and 2020. Out of 374 injured, 112 (29.9%) patients were diagnosed with penetrating gunshot bullet wounds: 69/112 (61.6%) were injured by shape-stable bullets, and the hollow-point bullets injured 43/112 (38.4%) patients.

RESULTS

More severe hemorrhagic shock stages were in patients injured by hollow-point bullets: shock stages III-IV was in 25 (58.1%) patients injured by the hollow-point bullets vs. 17 (24.6%) patients injured by shape-stable bullets (p = 0.0004). Left colon parts were more frequently injured as compared to the right colon side or transverse colon: 21 (48.8%) patients were injured by the hollow-point bullets (p < 0.0001), and 41 (59.4%) patients were injured by the shape-stable bullets (p = 0.032). A significant difference was identified for the frequent injury to the middle colon within the entire cohort (p = 0.023). Patients injured by the hollow-point bullets demonstrated a higher frequency of 3-5 areas of colon gunshot defects, which was detected in 18 (41.8%) patients injured by hollow-point bullets and none with shape-stable bullets injury (p = 0.0001). Colon Injury Scale (CIS) IV was detected in 7 (16.3%) patients injured by the hollow-point bullets as compared to 2 (2.9%) patients injured by shape-stable bullets (p = 0.011). Colostomy was performed in 14 (69%) patients injured by shape-stable bullets and in 12 (27.9%) patients injured by hollow-point bullets (p > 0.05). 15 (35%) patients died after injury by the hollow-point bullet, whereas 9 (13%) patients after damage by the shape-stable bullets (p = 0.0089).

CONCLUSIONS

All patients should be suspected to have an injury by bullet with expanding properties in case of penetrating abdominal injury (absent of outlet wound) and careful revision of the abdomen must be performed to identify possible multiorgan injury as well as multiple gunshot defects of the intestine.

Trauma de recto penetrante: revisión de tema

Introducción. En la actualidad, el trauma de recto continúa siendo una situación clínica compleja y temida por ser potencialmente mortal. Su detección y manejo temprano es la piedra angular para impactar tanto en la mortalidad como en la morbilidad de los pacientes. Hoy en día, aun existe debate sobre la aproximación quirúrgica ideal en el trauma de recto y las decisiones de manejo intraoperatorias se ven enormemente afectadas por la experiencia y preferencias del cirujano. Métodos. Se realizó una búsqueda de la literatura en las bases de datos de PubMed, Clinical Key, Google Scholar y SciELO utilizando las palabras claves descritas y se seleccionaron los artículos mas relevantes publicados en los últimos 20 años; se tuvieron en cuenta los artículos escritos en ingles y español. Discusión. El recto es el órgano menos frecuentemente lesionado en trauma, sin embargo, las implicaciones clínicas que conlleva pasar por alto este tipo de lesiones pueden ser devastadoras para el paciente. Las opciones para el diagnóstico incluyen el tacto rectal, la tomografía computarizada y la rectosigmoidoscopia. El manejo quirúrgico va a depender de la localización, el grado de la lesión y las lesiones asociadas. Conclusión. El conocimiento de la anatomía, el mecanismo de trauma y las lesiones asociadas permitirán al cirujano realizar una aproximación clínico-quirúrgica adecuada que lleve a desenlaces clínicos óptimos de los pacientes que se presentan con trauma de recto.

Anastomotic Outcomes in Military Exploratory Laparotomies in the Modern Combat Era

Background

Intestinal anastomoses in military settings are performed in severely injured patients who often undergo damage control laparotomy in austere environments. We describe anastomotic outcomes of patients from recent wars.

Methods

Military personnel with combat-related intra-abdominal injuries (June 2009-December 2014) requiring laparotomy with resection and anastomosis were analyzed. Patients were evacuated from Iraq or Afghanistan to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (Germany) before being transferred to participating U.S. military hospitals.

Results

Among 341 patients who underwent 1053 laparotomies, 87 (25.5%) required ≥1 anastomosis. Stapled anastomosis only was performed in 57.5% of patients, while hand-sewn only was performed in 14.9%, and 9.2% had both stapled and hand-sewn techniques (type unknown for 18.4%). Anastomotic failure occurred in 15% of patients. Those with anastomotic failure required more anastomoses (median 2 anastomoses, interquartile range [IQR] 1-3 vs. 1 anastomosis, IQR 1-2, P = .03) and more total laparotomies (median 5 laparotomies, IQR 3-12 vs. 3, IQR 2-4, P = .01). There were no leaks in patients that had only hand-sewn anastomoses, though a significant difference was not seen with those who had stapled anastomoses. While there was an increasing trend regarding surgical site infections (SSIs) with anastomotic failure after excluding superficial SSIs, it was not significant. There was no difference in mortality.

Discussion

Military trauma patients have a similar anastomotic failure rate to civilian trauma patients. Patients with anastomotic failure were more likely to have had more anastomoses and more total laparotomies. No definitive conclusions can be drawn about anastomotic outcome differences between hand-sewn and stapled techniques.

Penetrating Colon Trauma-the Effect of Injury Location on Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence to suggest that the more distal a penetrating colonic injury, the poorer its expected outcome, prompting consideration of diversion rather than anastomosis when faced with left colonic injury. The clinical outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in relation to their anatomical location within the colon were reviewed.

METHODS

A review was performed over eight years (2012-2020) of all patients over 18 years who had sustained penetrating colon injury and presented to our trauma centre in South Africa. Direct comparison was made between right colon vs left colon injuries.

RESULTS

A total of 450 patients were included; right colon: 260, left colon: 190. Gunshots predominated in the right colon, and the PATI was higher in this group. There were minimal differences in admission physiology and blood gas parameters between groups, but higher damage control surgery and ICU admission rates for the right colon group. There were similar rates of primary repair, anastomosis, and stoma between groups. Leak rates were no different between the two groups, and although overall complication rates were higher for the right colon, there was no difference with regard to gastro-intestinal and other complications, nor for mortality. While regression analysis did identify PATI to be a risk factor for overall complications and mortality, it failed to do so for anastomotic leak.

CONCLUSION

Our study did not demonstrate any difference in anastomotic leak rates or mortality between right vs left colonic injury. We recommend that all colonic injuries should be treated on their own merit, balanced against the patient's condition, regardless of anatomical location within the colon.

Management of the injured bowel: preserving bowel continuity as a gold standard

BACKGROUND

Management of bowel traumatic injuries is a challenge. Although anastomotic or suture leak remains a feared complication, preserving bowel continuity is increasingly the preferred strategy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of such a strategy.

METHODS

All included patients underwent surgery for bowel traumatic injuries at a high volume trauma center between 2007 and 2017. Postoperative course was analyzed for abdominal complications, morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 133 patients, 78% had small bowel injuries and 47% had colon injuries. 87% of small bowel injuries and 81% of colon injuries were treated with primary repair or anastomosis, with no difference in treatment according to injury site (p = 0.381). Mortality was 8%. Severe overall morbidity was 32%, and abdominal complications occurred in 32% of patients. Risk factors for severe overall morbidity were stoma creation (p = 0.036), heavy vascular expansion (p = 0.005) and a long delay before surgery (p = 0.023). Fistula rate was 2.2%; all leaks occurred after repairing small bowel wounds.

CONCLUSION

Primary repair of bowel injuries should be the preferred option in trauma patient, regardless of the site-small bowel or colon-of the injury. Stoma creation is an important factor for postoperative morbidity, which should be weighed against the risk of an intestinal suture or anastomosis.

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.

Rectal damage control: when to do and not to do

Rectal trauma is uncommon, but it is usually associated with injuries in adjacent pelvic or abdominal organs. Recent studies have changed the paradigm behind military rectal trauma management, showing better morbidity and mortality. However, damage control techniques in rectal trauma remain controversial. This article aims to present an algorithm for the treatment of rectal trauma in a patient with hemodynamic instability, according to damage control surgery principles. We propose to manage intraperitoneal rectal injuries in the same way as colon injuries. The treatment of extraperitoneal rectum injuries will depend on the percentage of the circumference involved. For injuries involving more than 25% of the circumference, a colostomy is indicated. While injuries involving less than 25% of the circumference can be managed through a conservative approach or primary repair. In rectal trauma, knowing when to do or not to do it makes the difference.

National estimates of intestinal ostomy creation and reversal for trauma

BACKGROUND

Intestinal ostomy creation after trauma is selectively indicated for destructive colon and rectal injuries. However, the nationwide rates of creation of ostomies for trauma and their reversal are not known. The objective of this study was to ascertain national estimates of trauma ostomy creation and reversal.

METHODS

Weighted analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Readmissions Database 2014 to 2015 was performed. Adult trauma patients (≥16 years) with a hollow viscus injury were included. Patients with preexisting ostomies and permanent ostomies and those who died within 48 hours of admission were excluded. Rates of ostomy creation and same admission ostomy reversal were calculated. Rates of postdischarge ostomy reversal were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine factors associated with postdischarge trauma ostomy reversal.

RESULTS

A total of 22,542 patients sustained a hollow viscus injury resulting in the creation of 2,145 ostomies (9.6%). The rate of same-admission ostomy reversal was 0.7% (n = 16). At 1, 3, 6, and 9 months, the cumulative stoma reversal rates were 0%, 7.6%, 31.0%, and 43.1%, respectively. The mean ± SD time from ostomy creation to reversal was 123 ± 6.7 days for those undergoing reversal. Injury Severity Score greater than 9 was significantly associated with ostomy nonreversal after discharge (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.66). Age, sex, insurance status, penetrating injury, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and hospital teaching status were not significantly associated with ostomy reversal.

CONCLUSION

The nationwide rate of ostomy creation after trauma is nearly 10%. At 6 months postinjury, only one third of patients had undergone ostomy reversal. Future study is needed to understand patient and provider-level factors associated with trauma ostomy reversal.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiology, level III.

Outcomes of Exploratory Laparotomy and Abdominal Infections Among Combat Casualties

BACKGROUND

Abdominal injuries historically account for 13% of battlefield surgical procedures. We examined the occurrence of exploratory laparotomies and subsequent abdominal surgical site infections (SSIs) among combat casualties.

METHODS

Military personnel injured during deployment (2009-2014) were included if they required a laparotomy for combat-related trauma and were evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, before being transferred to participating US military hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 4304 combat casualties, 341 (7.9%) underwent laparotomy. Including re-explorations, 1053 laparotomies (median, 2; interquartile range, 1-3; range, 1-28) were performed with 58% occurring within the combat zone. Forty-nine (14.4%) patients had abdominal SSIs (four with multiple SSIs): 27 (7.9%) with deep space SSIs, 14 (4.1%) with a deep incisional SSI, and 12 (3.5%) a superficial incisional SSI. Patients with abdominal SSIs had larger volume of blood transfusions (median, 24 versus 14 units), more laparotomies (median, 4 versus 2), and more hollow viscus injuries (74% versus 45%) than patients without abdominal SSIs. Abdominal closure occurred after 10 d for 12% of the patients with SSI versus 2% of patients without SSI. Mesh adjuncts were used to achieve fascial closure in 20.4% and 2.1% of patients with and without SSI, respectively. Survival was 98% and 96% in patients with and without SSIs, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 10% of combat casualties in the modern era required abdominal exploration and most were severely injured with hollow viscus injuries and required massive transfusions. Despite the extensive contamination from battlefield injuries, the SSI proportion is consistent with civilian rates and survival was high.

Article Commentary: Evolving Colon Injury Management: A Review

The colon is the second most commonly injured intra-abdominal organ in penetrating trauma. Management of traumatic colon injuries has evolved significantly over the past 200 years. Traumatic colon injuries can have a wide spectrum of severity, presentation, and management options. There is strong evidence that most non-destructive colon injuries can be successfully managed with primary repair or primary anastomosis. The management of destructive colon injuries remains controversial with most favoring resection with primary anastomosis and others favor colonic diversion in specific circumstances. The historical management of traumatic colon injuries, common mechanisms of injury, demographics, presentation, assessment, diagnosis, management, and complications of traumatic colon injuries both in civilian and military practice are reviewed. The damage control revolution has added another layer of complexity to management with continued controversy.

Gunshot wounds to the colon: predictive risk factors for the development of postoperative complications, an experience of 172 cases in 4 years

BACKGROUND

In our study, we have defined and evaluated risk factors for the development of post-operative complications in patients with gunshot wounds to the colon. The purpose of the study is to identify the most influential risk factors.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 172 patients admitted with gunshot wounds to the colon from 17 February 2011 to 31 December 2014. Age, gender, shock upon admission defined by vital signs and haemoglobin level, blood transfusion, injured site of the colon, the colon injury score, faecal contamination, surgical procedure, colon diversion, multiple organ injuries, delay time pre-operation and duration of the operation were considered as risk factors. All patients were observed for any postoperative complications.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-six patients (96.5%) were males, and six (3.5%) were female. The mean age was 28.5 years. On admission 104 (60.5%) patients were in shock, 89 (51.7%) required blood transfusion. Forty-four (25.5%) patients had an injury to the ascending colon, while 53 (30.8%), 13 (7.6%), 23 (13.4%), 21 (12.2%) and 18 (10.5%) patients had an injury in transverse, descending, sigmoid, rectum and multiple colon injuries respectively. A colon diversion was used in 64 patients (37.2%). Post-operative complications documented in 67 (38.9%) patients, 35 (20.3%) required re-exploratory laparotomy, while the disability occurred in 18 (10.4%)) cases, and post-operative mortality was 12 (6.9%).

CONCLUSION

Surgeons should be aware that shock state upon admission and blood transfusion are risk factors for postoperative complications in a patient with a gunshot penetrating injury to the colon.

Ostomy Usage for Colorectal Trauma in Combat Casualties

INTRODUCTION

The role for diverting ostomy as a method to help reduce morbidity and mortality has been well established in the combat trauma population. However, factors that influence the type of ostomy used and which ostomies become permanent are poorly studied. We examine patterns of ostomy usage and reversal in a large series of combat trauma patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of combat casualties treated at our continental U.S. military treatment facility from 2003 to 2015. All patients who underwent ostomy formation were included. Clinical and demographic factors were collected for all patients including the type of ostomy and whether or not ostomy reversal took place. Patients were grouped and analyzed based on ostomy type and by ostomy reversal.

RESULTS

We identified 202 patients who had ostomies created. End colostomies were most common (N = 149) followed by loop colostomies (N = 34) and end ileostomies (N = 19). Casualties that underwent damage control laparotomy (DCL) were less likely to have a loop colostomy created (p < 0.001). Ostomy reversal occurred in 89.9% of patients. There was no difference in ostomy reversal rates by ostomy type (p = 0.080). Presence of a pelvic fracture was associated with permanent ostomy (OR = 3.28, p = 0.019), but no factor independently predicted a permanent ostomy on multivariate analysis.

DISCUSSION

DCL and a severe perineal injury most strongly influence ostomy type selection. Most patients undergo colostomy reversal, and no factor independently predicted an ostomy being permanent. These findings provide a framework for understanding the issue of fecal diversion in the combat trauma population and inform military surgeons about injury patterns and treatment options.

Characteristics of Combat-Associated Small Bowel Injuries

INTRODUCTION

Although there are multiple studies regarding the management and outcomes of colonic injuries incurred in combat, the literature is limited with regard to small bowel injuries. This study seeks to provide the largest reported review of the characteristics of combat-associated small bowel injuries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Department of Defense Trauma Registry was queried for U.S. Armed Forces members who sustained hollow viscus injuries in the years 2007-2012 during Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn. Concomitant injuries, procedures, and complications were delineated. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the relationship of bowel injury pattern to rates of repeat laparotomy, fecal diversion, and complications.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-one service members had small bowel injuries. The mean age was 25.8 ± 6.6 yr with a mean injury severity score of 27.9 ± 12.4. The majority of injuries were penetrating (94.2%, n = 161) as a result of explosive devices (61.4%, n = 105). The median blood transfusion requirement in the first 24 h was 6.0 units (interquartile range 1.0-17.3 units). The most frequent concomitant injuries were large bowel (64.3%, n = 110), pelvic fracture (35.7%, n = 61), and perineal (26.3%, n = 45). Fifty patients (29.2%) had a colostomy, and nine patients (5.3%) had an ileostomy; 62.6% (n = 107) of soldiers underwent more than one laparotomy. The mortality rate was 1.8% (n = 3). The most common complications were pneumonia (15.2%, n = 26), deep vein thrombosis (14.6%, n = 25), and wound infection (14.6%, n = 25). The need for repeat laparotomy and fecal diversion was found to be significantly associated with injury pattern (p = 0.00052 and p < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We found that two-thirds of service members with small bowel injuries also had a large bowel injury. One-third of the patients required diversion and two-thirds had more than one laparotomy. The pattern of bowel injury significantly affected the need for repeat laparotomy and fecal diversion.

Assessing Risk and Related Complications after Reversal of Combat-Associated Ostomies

BACKGROUND

During the past decade of conflict, numerous patients with combat-associated injuries required the formation of an ostomy. However, outcomes in those patients undergoing ostomy reversal have yet to be analyzed. We review the experience and identify risk factors for complications after ostomy reversal in a series of patients with combat injuries at our military treatment facility.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review of patients with combat-associated injuries managed with a diverting ostomy who underwent ostomy reversal at our military treatment facility during a 13-year period. Demographic and clinical data were collected for all patients and postoperative complications were identified. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for complications after reversal. Complication rates were calculated for 90-day periods of time after ostomy creation and best-fit curve analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients were identified who underwent ostomy reversal. Forty patients (40.4%) suffered a post-reversal complication. On multivariate analysis, older age (odds ratio 1.11/y; p = 0.038), severe perineal injury indication for diversion (odds ratio 4.37; p = 0.028), and increased time interval between ostomy creation and reversal (odds ratio 1.005/d; p = 0.037), were independently associated with postoperative complications. A cubic regression best fit quarterly complication rate data (R² 0.526; p < 0.001) and calculates a minimum complication rate for reversal 90 to 180 days after ostomy creation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ostomy reversal in patients wounded in combat is a major undertaking with a high complication rate. The finding of a shorter interval from ostomy creation to reversal independently associated with a reduction in complications provides a modifiable risk factor to guide future practice and potentially reduce complications. Our modeling suggests reversal in the 3- to 6-month time frame can have the lowest rate of complications. Future research to reduce complications is indicated, especially in older patients with perineal wounds.

Management of Destructive Colon Injuries after Damage Control Surgery

After the World War II, fecal diversion became the standard of care for colon injuries, although medical, logistic, and technical advancements have challenged this approach. Damage control surgery serves to temporize immediately life-threatening conditions, and definitive management of destructive colon injuries is delayed until after appropriate resuscitation. The bowel can be left in discontinuity for up to 3 days before edema ensues, but the optimal repair window remains within 12 to 48 hours. Delayed anastomosis performed at the take-back operation or stoma formation has been reported with variable results. Studies have revealed good outcomes in those undergoing anastomosis after damage control surgery; however, they point to a subgroup of trauma patients considered to be "high risk" that may benefit from fecal diversion. Risk factors influencing morbidity and mortality rates include hypotension, massive transfusion, the degree of intra-abdominal contamination, associated organ injuries, shock, left-sided colon injury, and multiple comorbid conditions. Patients who are not suitable for anastomosis by 36 hours after damage control may be best managed with a diverting stoma. Failures are more likely related to ongoing instability, and the management strategy of colorectal injury should be based mainly on the patient's overall condition.

Rectal Trauma: Evidence-Based Practices

The management of rectal trauma has often been lumped in with colon trauma when, in fact, it is a unique entity. The anatomic nature of the rectum (with its intra- and extraperitoneal segments) lends itself to unique circumstances when it comes to management and treatment. From the four Ds (debridement, drainage, diversion, and distal irrigation), the management of rectal trauma has made some strides in light of the experiences coming out of the recent conflicts overseas as well as some rethinking of dogma. This article will serve to review the anatomy and types of injuries associated with rectal trauma. A treatment algorithm will also be presented based on our current literature review. We will also address controversial points and attempt to give our opinion in an effort to provide an update on an age-old problem.

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.

Evolution of the operative management of colon trauma

For any trauma surgeon, colon wounds remain a relatively common, yet sometimes challenging, clinical problem. Evolution in operative technique and improvements in antimicrobial therapy during the past two centuries have brought remarkable improvements in both morbidity and mortality after injury to the colon. Much of the early progress in management and patient survival after colon trauma evolved from wartime experience. Multiple evidence-based studies during the last several decades have allowed for more aggressive management, with most wounds undergoing primary repair or resection and anastomosis with an acceptably low suture line failure rate. Despite the abundance of quality evidence regarding management of colon trauma obtained from both military and civilian experience, there remains some debate among institutions regarding management of specific injuries. This is especially true with respect to destructive wounds, injuries to the left colon, blunt colon trauma and those wounds requiring colonic discontinuity during an abbreviated laparotomy. Some programs have developed data-driven protocols that have simplified management of destructive colon wounds, clearly identifying those high-risk patients who should undergo diversion, regardless of mechanism or anatomic location. This update will describe the progression in the approach to colon injuries through history while providing a current review of the literature regarding management of the more controversial wounds.

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.

Complex Perineal Trauma with Anorectal Avulsion

Introduction. The objective of this case report is to illustrate a severe perineal impalement injury, associated with anorectal avulsion and hemorrhagic shock. Results. A 32-year-old male patient was referred to our hospital for an impalement perineal trauma, associated with complex pelvic fracture and massive perineal soft tissue destruction and anorectal avulsion. On arrival, the systolic blood pressure was 85 mm Hg and the hemoglobin was 7.1 g/dL. The patient was transported to the operating room, and perineal lavage, hemostasis, and repacking were performed. After 12 hours in the Intensive Care Unit, the abdominal ultrasonography revealed free peritoneal fluid. We decided emergency laparotomy, and massive hemoperitoneum due to intraperitoneal rupture of pelvic hematoma was confirmed. Pelvic packing controlled the ongoing diffuse bleeding. After 48 hours, the relaparotomy with packs removal and loop sigmoid colostomy was performed. The postoperative course was progressive favorable, with discharge after 70 days and colostomy closure after four months, with no long-term complications. Conclusions. Severe perineal injuries are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Their management in high volume centers, with experience in colorectal and trauma surgery, allocating significant human and material resources, decreases the early mortality and long-term complications, offering the best quality of life for patients.

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.

Factors affecting morbidity and mortality in traumatic colorectal injuries and reliability and validity of trauma scoring systems

Background and aim

This study aims to determine the factors that affect morbidity and mortality in colon and rectum injuries related with trauma, the use of trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality and morbidity.

Patients and methods

Besides patient demographic characteristics, the mechanism of injury, the time between injury and surgery, accompanying body injuries, admittance Glasgow coma scale (GCS), findings at surgery and treatment methods were also recorded. With the obtained data, the abbreviated injury scale (AIS), injury severity score (ISS), revised trauma score (RTS) and trauma-ISS (TRISS) scores of each patient were calculated by using the 2008 revised AIS.

Results

Of the patients, 172 (88.7 %) were male, 22 (11.3 %) were female and the mean age was 29.15 ± 12.392 (15–89) years. The morbidity of our patients were 32 % and mortality were 12.4 %. ISS (p < 0.001), RTS (p < 0.001), and the TRISS (p < 0.001) on mortality were found to be significant. TRISS (p = 0.008), the ISS (p < 0.001), the RTS (p = 0.03), the trauma surgery interval (TSI, p < 0.001) were observed to have significant effects on morbidity.

Regression analysis showed that the ISS (OR 1.1; CI 95 % 1.01–1.2; p = 0.02), the RTS (OR 0.37; CI 95 % 0.21–0.67; p = 0.001) had significant effects on mortality. While the effects of TSI (OR 5.3; CI 95 % 1.5–18.8; p = 0.01) on morbidity were found to be significant.

Conclusion

Predicting mortality by using scoring systems and close postoperative follow up of patients in the risk group may ensure decreases in the rates of morbidity and mortality.

Is ostomy still mandatory in rectal injuries?

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the treatment methods of ostomy and primary repair in rectal injuries. A total of 63 patients with rectal injury who had been treated at Dicle University Hospital between 2000 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. To determine the outcomes of the treatment methods, the patients were divided into 2 groups (ostomy group: patients who underwent ostomy plus primary repair; repair group: patients who only underwent primary repair) and compared. The patients included 51 men and 12 women. A total of 44 patients underwent ostomy, whereas 19 patients underwent primary repair. No morbidity was detected in either group with grade II intraperitoneal rectal injury. The outcomes of the patients with grade II intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal rectal injury were similar. In the treatment of patients with low-grade rectal injuries, primary repair can be preferred to ostomy.

Colon diversion versus primary colonic repair in gunshot abdomen with penetrating colon injury in Libyan revolution conflict 2011 (a single center experience)

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is comparing colon diversion versus primary repair in penetrating colon gunshot injuries.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 63 cases of gunshot abdomen with penetrating colon injury were admitted to Al-jalla Hospital in 2011 in Benghazi, Libya. After surgical intervention, these patients were observed for any postoperative complications.

RESULTS

During the study period, 63 eligible patients included, 62 (98.4%) were males and 1 (1.6%) was female. And the mean age was 29.24 years. Eighteen patients had an injury on the right side of the colon, while 16, 6, 11, 6, 2, 3, and 1 patients had an injury on the transverse, left, sigmoid, rectum, right transverse, left transverse, and total colonic injury, respectively. In the first group, 23 patients (36.5%) was treated with colon diversion, (2 with Hartmann's operation, 21 with loop colostomy). In the second group, 40 patients (63.4 %) was treated with primary repair. Eighteen (28.5%) with right hemicolectomy, 5 (7.9%) with transverse colon resection and anastomosis, and 17 (26.9%) with simple repair. We evaluate the rate of postoperative complication and compare the postoperative morbidity between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In our study, there was no significant statistical difference between types of operations and rate of complications (P = 0.18). We could not see any advantage of the diversion over the primary repair. To reduce risk of the psychological trauma, complications of colostomy, unnecessary repeated hospitalization, decrease of economic cost, and complications of stoma revision operation, we should consider that the primary repair of penetrating colon injuries is an acceptable alternative method of treatment over the colostomy.

Atypical indications for transanal endoscopic microsurgery to avoid major surgery

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) was originally designed for the removal of rectal tumors, principally incipient adenomas, and adenocarcinomas up to 20 cm from the anal verge. However, with the evolution of the technique and the increase in surgeons' experience, new indications have emerged and TEM may now be used in place of other surgical procedures which are associated with higher morbidity. The aim of our study was to evaluate our group's use of TEM or transanal endoscopic operations (TEO) for conditions other than rectal tumors.

METHODS

An observational study of TEM (using Wolf equipment) or TEO (using Storz equipment) for indications other than excision of rectal tumors was conducted from June 2004 to July 2012.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-four procedures were performed using TEM/TEO: removal of adenocarcinomas in 148 (34.9 %) patients, adenomas in 236 (55.7 %), post-polypectomy excision in 12 (2.8 %), removal of neuroendocrine tumors in 8 (1.9 %), and atypical indications in 20 (4.7 %). Atypical indications were pelvic abscess (3), benign rectal stenoses (2), rectourethral fistula after prostatectomy (3), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (3), endorectal condylomata acuminata (1), rectal prolapse (2), extraction of impacted fecaloma in the rectosigmoid junction (1), repair of traumatic and iatrogenic perforation of the rectum (2), and presacral tumor (3).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TEM/TEO in atypical indications may benefit patients by avoiding surgical procedures associated with greater morbidity.

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.

Rectal trauma in adults

Rectal trauma is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality and generally affects young males due to its aetiology of violent crime and vehicular collision. Historically, management has followed principles derived from military practice, with faecal diversion, pre-sacral drainage and distal washout being mandatory. Civilian trauma studies examining management of colon and rectum injuries from the early 1950s identified major differences in the level of energy transfer between civilian and military wounds, given that the vast majority are penetrating in nature. This led to a re-evaluation of the necessity for these interventions for all rectal injuries. Current management depends on whether the injury is intra- or extraperitoneal, with those above the peritoneal reflection being readily accessible and amenable to treatment as for colon injury. Extraperitoneal injuries remain difficult to access and direct repair is usually impossible; the mainstay of treatment in most instances remains faecal diversion. The role of pre-sacral drainage and distal washout remains contentious in the realms of civilian rectal injury but retains a place in battlefield or other high-energy transfer rectal injuries where aggressive early management reduces septic complications. This article reviews the historical and current evidence for the management of both civilian and military extraperitoneal rectal injuries.

Traumatic injury to the colon and rectum in Scotland: demographics and outcome

AIM

An analysis of a multi-centred database of trauma patients was performed.

METHOD

The study used data from a prospective multi-centre trauma database containing details of 52 887 trauma patients admitted to participating Scottish Hospitals over an 11-year period.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty (0.64%) of 52 887 trauma patients (284 male) with colorectal injuries were identified; 43.9% of colorectal injuries occurred following blunt trauma and 56.1% following penetrating injury. Patients in the latter group were younger, had less haemodynamic compromise and were less likely to die than those with blunt trauma (P < 0.01). The overall mortality rate was 25.6% and after rectal injury it was 21.2% (P > 0.05). Female gender, increased age, road traffic accidents and those admitted as a result of a blunt traumatic injury were associated with increased mortality. Age > 65 years (P = 0.01), increasing injury severity score (ISS) at presentation (P < 0.001), haemodynamic compromise (P = 0.045) and decreased Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) (P < 0.001) had the strongest independent associations with mortality.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal injury after trauma has a high morbidity. Clinical features associated with death allow stratification of mortality risk.

Management and Outcomes of Traumatic Colon Injury in Civilian and Military Patients

Divergent injury patterns may indicate the need for differing strategies in combat and civilian trauma patients. This study aims to compare outcomes of colon injury management in these two populations. Parallel retrospective reviews were conducted comparing warfighters (n = 59) injured downrange and subsequently transferred to the United States with civilians (n = 30) treated at a United States Level I trauma center. Patient characteristics, mechanisms of injury, treatment course, and complications were compared. The civilian (CP) and military (MP) populations did not differ in Injury Severity Score (MP 20 vs CP 26; P = 0.41). The MP experienced primarily blast injuries (51%) as opposed to blunt trauma (70%; P < 0.01) in the CP. The site of colon injury did not differ between groups ( P = 0.15). Initial management was via primary repair (53%) and resection and anastomosis (27%) in the CP versus colostomy creation (47%) and stapled ends (32%) in the MP ( P < 0.001). Ultimately, the CP and MP experienced equivalent continuity rates (90%). Overall complications (MP 68% vs CP 53%; P = 0.18) and mortality (MP 3% vs CP 3%; P = 0.99) did not differ between the two groups. The CP and MP experience different mechanisms and initial management of colon injury. Ultimately, continuity is restored in the majority of both populations.

Difficult decisions in the surgical care of military casualties with major torso trauma

Testing and difficult decision-making is a sine qua non of surgical practice on military operations. Better pre-hospital care protocols, reduced evacuation timelines and increased scrutiny of outcome have rightfully emphasised the requirement of surgeons to "get it right, first time and every time" when treating patients. This article addresses five contentious areas concerning severe torso trauma, with relevant literature summarised by a subject matter expert, in order to produce practical guidance that will assist the newly deployed surgeon in delivering optimal clinical outcomes.

Infections complicating the care of combat casualties during operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom

BACKGROUND

Continued assessment of casualty complications, such as infections, enables the development of evidence-based guidelines to mitigate excess morbidity and mortality. We examine the Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR) for infections and potential risk factors, such as transfusions, among Iraq and Afghanistan trauma patients.

METHODS

JTTR entries from deployment-related injuries with completed records between March 19, 2003, and April 13, 2009, were evaluated using International Classification of Diseases-9 codes for infections defined by anatomic/clinical syndromes and/or type of infecting organisms. Risk factors included mechanisms of injury, patient demographics, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and transfusion, including massive transfusions (≥ 10 units of packed red blood cells).

RESULTS

We reviewed 16,742 patients entries (15,021 from Operation Iraqi Freedom (9,883 battle injuries [BI]) and 1,721 from Operation Enduring Freedom (1,090 BI). A total of 96.6% were men and 77.6% were Army personnel. The majority of BI were due to explosive devices (36.3%). There were 921 patients (5.5%) who had one or more infection codes with only 111 (0.6%) recorded deaths (16 with infections). Infections were commonly gram-negative bacteria (47.6%) involving skin/wound infections (26.7%), and lung infections (14.6%). Risk factors or associations that were most notable in univariate and multivariate analysis were calendar year of trauma, ISS, and pattern of injury.

CONCLUSION

The 5.5% infection rate is consistent with previous military and civilian trauma literature; however, with the limitations of the JTTR, the infection rate is likely an underrepresentation due to inadequate level V and long-term infectious complications data. Combat operational trauma is primarily associated with gram-negative bacteria typically involving infections of wounds or other skin structures and lung infections such as pneumonia. They are commonly linked with higher ISS and injuries to the head, neck, and face.

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.

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.