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

Proposal of an algorithm for the management of rectally inserted foreign bodies: a surgical single-center experience with review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Retained rectal foreign bodies (RFBs) are uncommon clinical findings. Although the management of RFBs is rarely reported in the literature, clinicians regularly face this issue. To date, there is no standardized management of RFBs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate our own data and subsequently develop a treatment algorithm.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who presented between January 2006 and December 2019 with rectally inserted RFBs at the emergency department of the Klinikum Stuttgart, Germany, were retrospectively identified. Clinicopathologic features, management, complications, and outcomes were assessed. Based on this experience, a treatment algorithm was developed.

RESULTS

A total of 69 presentations with rectally inserted RFBs were documented in 57 patients. In 23/69 cases (33.3%), the RFB was removed transanally by the emergency physician either digitally (n = 14) or with the help of a rigid rectoscope (n = 8) or a colonoscope (n = 1). In 46/69 cases (66.7%), the RFB was removed in the operation theater under general anesthesia with muscle relaxation. Among these, 11/46 patients (23.9%) underwent abdominal surgery, either for manual extraction of the RFB (n = 9) or to exclude a bowel perforation (n = 2). Surgical complications occurred in 3/11 patients. One patient with rectal perforation developed pelvic sepsis and underwent abdominoperineal extirpation in the further clinical course.

CONCLUSION

The management of RFBs can be challenging and includes a wide range of options from removal without further intervention to abdominoperineal extirpation in cases of pelvic sepsis. Whenever possible, RFBs should obligatorily be managed in specialized colorectal centers following a clear treatment algorithm.

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.

Successful Transabdominal Removal of Penetrating Iron Rod in the Rectum: A Case Report

Foreign bodies in the anus and rectum are not uncommon presentations globally. Reasons for foreign bodies in the rectum can be trauma, assault, psychiatric reasons but the most common reason documented is sexual pleasure, and objects range from sex toys to tools to packed drugs. Regardless of the reason, health care providers must maintain nonjudgmental composure and express empathy. Numerous cases have been reported of anorectal foreign body due to various causes. Removal of the objects has mostly been through rectally but some does need surgical intervention. A multidisciplinary approach and radiologic investigations are important to guide in the management outline. Establishment of guidelines for anorectal foreign bodies are needed to guide surgeons and emergency physicians on the course of treatment. We present a case of an eleven-year old school boy slid and fell on an iron rod that penetrated his rectum through his anal canal. Presented with clinical features of peritonitis, where emergency laparotomy was done and the iron rod was extracted abdominally with primary repair of the rectum. The boy recovered well and was discharged four days after with no complications.

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.

Damage control surgical management of combined small and large bowel injuries in penetrating trauma: Are ostomies still pertinent?

Hollow viscus injuries represent a significant portion of overall lesions sustained during penetrating trauma. Currently, isolated small or large bowel injuries are commonly managed via primary anastomosis in patients undergoing definitive laparotomy or deferred anastomosis in patients requiring damage control surgery. The traditional surgical dogma of ostomy has proven to be unnecessary and, in many instances, actually increases morbidity. The aim of this article is to delineate the experience obtained in the management of combined hollow viscus injuries of patients suffering from penetrating trauma. We sought out to determine if primary and/or deferred bowel injury repair via anastomosis is the preferred surgical course in patients suffering from combined small and large bowel penetrating injuries. Our experience shows that more than 90% of all combined penetrating bowel injuries can be managed via primary or deferred anastomosis, even in the most severe cases requiring the application of damage control principles. Applying this strategy, the overall need for an ostomy (primary or deferred) could be reduced to less than 10%.

Concomitant bladder and rectal injuries: Results from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Rectal Injury Study Group

BACKGROUND

Combined traumatic injuries to the rectum and bladder are rare. We hypothesized that the combination of bladder and rectal injures would have worse outcomes than rectal injury alone.

METHODS

This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 traumatic rectal injury patients who were admitted to one of 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, and management of rectal injury were collected. Patients who sustained a rectal injury alone were compared with patients who sustained a combined injury to the bladder and rectum. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine if abdominal complications, mortality, and length of stay were impacted by a concomitant bladder injury after adjusting for cofounders.

RESULTS

There were 424 patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury, of which 117 (28%) had a combined injury to the bladder. When comparing the patients with a combined bladder/rectal injury to the rectal alone group, there was no difference in admission demographics admission physiology, or Injury Severity Score. There were also no differences in management of the rectal injury and no difference in abdominal complications (13% vs. 16%, p = 0.38), mortality (3% vs. 2%, p = 0.68), or length of stay (17 days vs. 21 days, p = 0.10). When looking at only the 117 patients with a combined injury, the addition of a colostomy did not significantly decrease the rate of abdominal complications (14% vs. 8%, p = 0.42), mortality (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.99), or length of stay (17 days vs. 17 days, p = 0.94). After adjusting for cofounders (AAST rectal injury grade, sex, damage-control surgery, diverting colostomy, and length of stay) the presence of a bladder injury did not impact outcomes.

CONCLUSION

For patients with traumatic rectal injury, a concomitant bladder injury does not increase the rates of abdominal complications, mortality, or length of stay. Furthermore, the addition of a diverting colostomy for management of traumatic bladder and rectal injury does not change outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; prognostic/therapeutic.

Traumatic rectal injuries: Is the combination of computed tomography and rigid proctoscopy sufficient?

BACKGROUND

There are no clear guidelines for the best test or combination of tests to identify traumatic rectal injuries. We hypothesize that computed tomography (CT) and rigid proctoscopy (RP) will identify all injuries.

METHODS

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study (2004-2015) of patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury. Patients with known rectal injuries who underwent both CT and RP as part of their diagnostic workup were included. Only patients with full thickness injuries (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade II-V) were included. Computed tomography findings of rectal injury, perirectal stranding, or rectal wall thickening and RP findings of blood, mucosal abnormalities, or laceration were considered positive.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients were identified. Mean age was 32 years, 85(79%) were male, and 67(63%) involved penetrating mechanisms. A total of 36 (34%) and 100 (94%) patients had positive CT and RP findings, respectively. Only 3 (3%) patients had both a negative CT and negative RP. On further review, each of these three patients had intraperitoneal injuries and had indirect evidence of rectal injury on CT scan including pneumoperitoneum or sacral fracture.

CONCLUSION

As stand-alone tests, neither CT nor RP can adequately identify traumatic rectal injuries. However, the combination of both test demonstrates a sensitivity of 97%. Intraperitoneal injuries may be missed by both CT and RP, so patients with a high index of suspicion and/or indirect evidence of rectal injury on CT scan may necessitate laparotomy for definitive diagnosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic, level IV.

Treatment of large avulsion injury in perianal, sacral, and perineal regions by island flaps or skin graft combined with vacuum assisted closure

BACKGROUND

Traumatic avulsion injuries to the anus, although uncommon, can result in serious complications and even death. Management of anal avulsion injuries remains controversial and challenging. This study aimed to investigate the clinical effects of treating large skin and subcutaneous tissue avulsion injuries in the perianal, sacral, and perineal regions with island flaps or skin graft combined with vacuum assisted closure.

METHODS

Island flaps or skin graft combined with vacuum assisted closure, diverting ileostomy, the rectum packed with double-lumen tubes around Vaseline gauze, negative pressure drainage with continuous distal washing, wounds with skin grafting as well as specialized treatment were performed.

RESULTS

The injuries healed in all patients. Six cases had incomplete perianal avulsion without wound infection. Wound infection was seen in four cases with annular perianal avulsion and was controlled, and the separated prowl lacuna was closed. The survival rate in 10 patients who underwent skin grafting was higher than 90%. No anal stenosis was observed after surgery, and ileostomy closure was performed at 3 months (six cases) and 6 months (four cases) after surgery, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Covering a wound with an island flap or skin graft combined with vacuum assisted closure is successful in solving technical problems, protects the function of the anus and rapidly seals the wound at the same time.

Pseudoaneurysm rupture causing hemoperitoneum following rectal impalement injury: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Although vascular anatomy of the rectum is complex, pseudoaneurysm followed by massive hemoperitoneum after rectal impalement injury is extremely rare.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 43-year-old man presented with abdominal distension. One day earlier, he had undergone sigmoid loop colostomy for rectal implement injury at a local hospital. After the operation, he had become hemodynamically unstable. Digital rectal examination showed a penny-sized anterior rectal wall defect 6 cm from the anal verge. Computed tomography (CT) revealed a hematoma (12 × 10 × 15 cm) with bleeding in the pelvic cavity and an adjacent pseudoaneurysm in the rectum. A large amount of blood and massive hematoma were evacuated by surgery. The Hartmann procedure was performed, but the pseudoaneurysm was not resected. On the 11th postoperative day, hemoglobin decreased (11.6 g/dL-7.9 g/dL), and CT revealed a recurrent hematoma (6.0 × 4.2 cm) in the pelvic cavity, with a residual pseudoaneurysm. Angiography failed to localize the pseudoaneurysm. Consequently, prophylactic embolization at the anterior branch of both the internal iliac arteries was performed. The subsequent hospitalization course was uneventful.

DISCUSSION

Rectal impalement injury may result in pseudoaneurysm of the rectal arteries. However, pseudoaneurysm rupture of the mid rectal artery, followed by massive hemoperitoneum, has not been reported in the English literature. From our experience, preoperative diagnosis of a pseudoaneurysm is crucial for definite surgical management. When surgical resection is indicated, it should include the underlying pseudoaneurysm.

CONCLUSION

Although pseudoaneurysm rupture causing hemoperitoneum after a rectal impalement injury is extremely rare, meticulous preoperative evaluation is necessary for correct management.

Penetrating Anorectal Injury Caused by a Wild Boar Attack: A Case Report

Wild boar attacks have rarely been reported in the medical literature. This is the case of an 83-year-old male farmer who was assaulted from behind by an injured adult wild boar. He presented with hemorrhagic shock after sustaining injuries to the right profunda femoris artery and right sciatic nerve as well as significant soft-tissue injuries, bilateral iliac wing fractures, an open pneumothorax, and an anorectal injury. The anorectal injury was treated with fecal diversion but was complicated by soft-tissue infection in the surrounding dead space. The patient needed multiple operations, including removal of the distal rectum and creation of a permanent colostomy. In this report, we highlighted the characteristics of anorectal trauma caused by a wild boar attack. We conclude that penetrating anorectal injuries caused by this type of attack can be associated with extensive soft-tissue damage despite externally appearing to be simple puncture wounds. Anorectal combat injuries have demonstrated similar extensive surrounding soft-tissue injuries and propensity for infection; therefore, this case supports adopting a similar treatment strategy, that of serial and radical debridement, to treat certain wild boar injuries.