Historical perspective and current management of colonic and intraperitoneal rectal trauma

Anorectal emergencies: WSES-AAST guidelines

Anorectal emergencies comprise a wide variety of diseases that share common symptoms, i.e., anorectal pain or bleeding and might require immediate management. While most of the underlying conditions do not need inpatient management, some of them could be life-threatening and need prompt recognition and treatment. It is well known that an incorrect diagnosis is frequent for anorectal diseases and that a delayed diagnosis is related to an impaired outcome. This paper aims to improve the knowledge and the awareness on this specific topic and to provide a useful tool for every physician dealing with anorectal emergencies.The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the boards of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the WSES-AAST-WJES Consensus Conference on Anorectal Emergencies, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES-AAST panel of experts was reached. We structured our work into seven main topics to cover the entire management of patients with anorectal emergencies and to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.

The Management of Retained Rectal Foreign Body

Purpose

Because insertion of a foreign body (FB) into the anus is considered a taboo practice, patients with a retained rectal FB may hesitate to obtain medical care, and attending surgeons may lack experience with removing these FBs. We performed this study to evaluate the clinical characteristics of Korean patients with a retained rectal FB and propose management guideline for such cases based on our experience.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated 14 patients between January 2006 and December 2018. We assessed demographic features, mechanism of FB insertion, clinical course between diagnosis and management, and outcomes.

Results

All patients were male (mean age, 43 years) and presented with low abdominal pain (n = 2), anal bleeding (n = 2), or concern about a retained rectal FB without symptoms (n = 10). FB insertion was most commonly associated with sexual gratification or anal eroticism (n = 11, 78.6%). All patients underwent general anesthesia for anal sphincter relaxation with the exception of 2 who underwent FB removal in the emergency department. FBs were retrieved transanally using a clamp (n = 2), myoma screw (n = 1), clamp application following abdominal wall compression (n = 2), or laparotomy followed by rectosigmoid colon milking (n = 2). Colotomy and primary repair were performed in four patients, and Hartmann operation was performed in one patient with fecal peritonitis. No morbidity or mortality was reported. All patients refused postextraction anorectal functional and anatomical evaluation and psychological counseling.

Conclusion

Retained rectal FB is rare; however, colorectal surgeons should be aware of the various methods that can be used for FB retrieval and the therapeutic algorithm applicable in such cases.

Colorectal Injury in a Personal Watercraft (Jet Ski) Passenger: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

As the popularity of the personal watercraft (PWC) or Jet Ski increases, injuries suffered from the usage of them become more common. Most severe injuries in this setting are typically related to blunt head trauma. Here we present an unusual case of hydrostatic injury to the rectum and sigmoid colon due to exposure to a high-pressure jet stream of water in a passenger thrown from the rear of a PWC. In addition, a review of the literature of similar cases is briefly discussed. (Hong Kong j.emerg.med. 2014;21:322-325)

The management of colonic trauma in the damage control era

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to audit our current management of colonic trauma, and to review our experience of colonic trauma in patients who underwent initial damage control (DC) surgery. METHODS All patients treated for colonic trauma between January 2012 and December 2014 by the Pietermaritzburg Metropolitan Trauma Service were included in the study. Data reviewed included mechanism of injury, method of management (primary repair [PR], primary diversion [PD] or DC) and outcome (complications and mortality rate). Results A total of 128 patients sustained a colonic injury during the study period. Ninety-seven per cent of the injuries were due to penetrating trauma. Of these cases, 56% comprised stab wounds (SWs) and 44% were gunshot wounds (GSWs). Management was by PR in 99, PD in 20 and DC surgery in 9 cases. Among the 69 SW victims, 57 underwent PR, 9 had PD and 3 required a DC procedure. Of the 55 GSW cases, 40 were managed with PR, 9 with PD and 6 with DC surgery. In the PR group, there were 16 colonic complications (5 cases of breakdown and 11 of wound sepsis). Overall, nine patients (7%) died. CONCLUSIONS PR of colonic trauma is safe and should be used for the majority of such injuries. Persistent acidosis, however, should be considered a contraindication. In unstable patients with complex injuries, the optimal approach is to perform DC surgery. In this situation, formal diversion is contraindicated, and the injury should be controlled and dropped back into the abdomen at the primary operation. At the repeat operation, if the physiological insult has been reversed, then formal repair of the colonic injury is acceptable.

Rectal foreign bodies: what is the current standard?

Rectal foreign bodies represent a challenging and unique field of colorectal trauma. The approach includes a careful history and physical examination, a high index of suspicion for any evidence of perforation, a creative approach to nonoperative removal, and appropriate short-term follow-up to detect any delayed perforation.

Epidemiology of modern battlefield colorectal trauma: a review of 977 coalition casualties

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injuries to the lower gastrointestinal tract occur in up to 15% of all injured combatants, with significant morbidity (up to 75%) and mortality. The incidence, etiology, associated injuries, and overall mortality related to modern battlefield colorectal trauma are poorly characterized.

METHODS

Using data from the Joint Theater Trauma Registry and other Department of Defense electronic health records, the ongoing Joint Surgical Transcolonic Injury or Ostomy Multi-theater Assessment project quantifies epidemiologic trends in colon injury, risk factors for prolonged or perhaps unnecessary fecal diversion, and quality of life in US military personnel requiring colostomies. In the current study, all coalition troops with colon or rectal injuries as classified by DRG International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev. diagnosis and Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes in the Joint Theater Trauma Registry were included.

RESULTS

During 8 years, 977 coalition military personnel with colorectal injury were identified, with a mean (SD) Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 22.2 (13.2). Gunshot wounds remain the primary mechanism of injury (57.6%). Compared with personnel with colon injuries, those with rectal trauma sustained greater injury to face and extremities but fewer severe thoracic and abdominal injuries (p < 0.005). Overall fecal diversion rates were significantly higher in Iraq than in Afghanistan (38.7% vs. 31.6%, respectively; p = 0.03), predominantly owing to greater use of diversion for colon trauma. There was little difference in diversion rates between theaters for rectal injuries (59.6% vs. 50%, p < 0.15). The overall mortality rate was 8.2%. Notably, the mortality rate for patients with no fecal diversion (10.8%) was significantly greater than those with fecal diversion (3.7%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Military personnel sustaining colon or rectal trauma continue to have elevated mortality rates, even after reaching surgical treatment facilities. Furthermore, associated serious injuries are commonly encountered. Fecal diversion in these patients may lead to reduced mortality, although prospective selection criteria for diversion do not currently exist. Future research into risk factors for colostomy creation, timing of diversion in relation to damage-control laparotomy, and quality of life in veterans with stomas will produce useful insights and help guide therapy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic study, level III.

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.

Rectal foreign bodies

Rectal foreign bodies present a difficult diagnostic and management dilemma because of delayed presentation, a variety of objects, and a wide spectrum of injuries. An orderly approach to the diagnosis, management, and post-extraction evaluation of the patient with a rectal foreign body is essential. This article outlines and describes the stepwise evaluation and management of the patient with a rectal foreign body. The authors also describe the varied techniques needed to successfully remove the different foreign bodies that may be encountered.

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.