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

Proximal protective diverting ostomy following colon anastomosis for penetrating trauma may not be protective: A matched cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Despite the shift toward liberal primary anastomosis in penetrating colon injuries, some surgeons recommend a protective diverting ostomy (DO) proximal to the anastomosis. This study evaluates the effect of DO on outcomes in patients undergoing colon resection and anastomosis following penetrating trauma.

METHODS

The TQIP database (2013-2018) was queried for penetrating colon injuries undergoing colectomy and anastomosis. Patients receiving DO were propensity matched to patients without diverting ostomy (woDO) (1:3). Outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

After matching, 89 DO patients were analyzed. The DO group had more surgical site infections (32 ​% vs. 21 ​%; p ​< ​0.05) and longer hospital stay (20 [13-27] vs. 15 [9-25]; p ​< ​0.05) compared to the woDO group. Mortality and unplanned operations were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverting ostomy after colon resection and anastomosis is associated with increased infectious complications without decreasing unplanned operations or mortality. Its routine role in penetrating colon trauma needs reassessment.

Destructive colon injuries requiring resection: Is colostomy ever indicated?

BACKGROUND

The management of destructive colon injuries requiring resection has shifted from mandatory diverting stoma to liberal use of primary anastomosis. Various risk criteria have been suggested for the selection of patients for primary anastomosis or ostomy. At our center, we have been practicing a policy of liberal primary anastomosis irrespective of risk factors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the colon-related outcomes in patients managed with this policy.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all colon injuries requiring resection. Data collected included patient demographics, injury characteristics, blood transfusions, operative findings, operations performed, complications, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 287 colon injuries were identified, 101 of whom required resection, forming the study population. The majority (63.4%) were penetrating injuries. Furthermore, 16.8% were hypotensive on admission, 40.6% had moderate or severe fecal spillage, 35.6% received blood transfusion of >4 U, and 41.6% had Injury Severity Score of >15. At index operation, 88% were managed with primary anastomosis and 12% with colon discontinuity, and one patient had stoma. Damage-control laparotomy (DCL) with temporary abdominal closure was performed in 39.6% of patients. Of these patients with DCL, 67.5% underwent primary anastomosis, 30.0% were left with colon discontinuity, and 2.5% had stoma. Overall, after the definitive management of the colon, including those patients who were initially left in colon discontinuity, only six patients (5.9%) had a stoma. The incidence of anastomotic leaks in patients with primary anastomosis at the index operation was 8.0%, and there was no colon-related mortality. The incidence of colon anastomotic leaks in the 27 patients with DCL and primary anastomosis was 11.1%, and there was no colon-related mortality. Multivariate analysis evaluating possible risk factors identified discontinuity of the colon as independent risk factor for mortality.

CONCLUSION

Liberal primary anastomosis should be considered in almost all patients with destructive colon injuries requiring resection, irrespective of risk factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Use of near-infrared imaging using indocyanine green associates with the lower incidence of postoperative complications for intestinal and mesenteric injury

Anastomotic leakage after intestinal resection is one of the most serious complications of surgical intervention for hollow viscus injury. Adequate vascular perfusion of the anastomotic site is essential to prevent anastomotic leakage. Near-infrared imaging using indocyanine green (NIR-ICG) is useful for the objective assessment of vascular perfusion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of NIR-ICG with intestinal and mesenteric injuries. This was a retrospective, single-center study of patients undergoing surgery for intestinal and mesenteric injuries. NIR-ICG was used to evaluate vascular perfusion. Postoperative complications were assessed between NIR-ICG and non-NIR-ICG groups.The use of NIR-ICG was associated with a lower incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications with a statistical tendency (p = 0.076). When limited to patients that underwent intestinal resection, the use of NIR-ICG was significantly associated with a lower risk of perioperative complications (p = 0.009). The use of NIR-ICG tended to associate with the lower incidence of postoperative complications after intestinal and mesenteric trauma surgery. NIR-ICG was associated with a significantly lower risk of complications in patients undergoing intestinal resection. The NIR-ICG procedure is simple and quick and is expected to be useful for intestinal and mesenteric trauma.

WSES/GAIS/SIS-E/WSIS/AAST global clinical pathways for patients with intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in hospitals worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs include early recognition, adequate source control, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and prompt physiologic stabilization using a critical care environment, combined with an optimal surgical approach. Together, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery (GAIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) have jointly completed an international multi-society document in order to facilitate clinical management of patients with IAIs worldwide building evidence-based clinical pathways for the most common IAIs. An extensive non-systematic review was conducted using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases, limited to the English language. The resulting information was shared by an international task force from 46 countries with different clinical backgrounds. The aim of the document is to promote global standards of care in IAIs providing guidance to clinicians by describing reasonable approaches to the management of IAIs.

A literature review on large intestinal hyperelastic constitutive modeling

Impacts, traumas and strokes are spontaneously life-threatening, but chronic symptoms strangle patient every day. Colorectal tissue mechanics in such chronic situations not only regulates the physio-psychological well-being of the patient, but also confirms the level of comfort and post-operative clinical outcomes. Numerous uniaxial and multiaxial tensile experiments on healthy and affected samples have evidenced significant differences in tissue mechanical behavior and strong colorectal anisotropy across each layer in thickness direction and along the length. Furthermore, this study reviewed various forms of passive constitutive models for the highly fibrous colorectal tissue ranging from the simplest linearly elastic and the conventional isotropic hyperelastic to the most sophisticated second harmonic generation image based anisotropic mathematical formulation. Under large deformation, the isotropic description of tissue mechanics is unequivocally ineffective which demands a microstructural based tissue definition. Therefore, the information collected in this review paper would present the current state-of-the-art in colorectal biomechanics and profoundly serve as updated computational resources to develop a sophisticated characterization of colorectal tissues.

Etiology and surgical management of pediatric acute colon perforation beyond the neonatal stage

PURPOSE

Acute colon perforation is a pediatric surgical emergency. We aimed to analyze the different etiologies and clinical characteristics of acute non-traumatic colon perforation beyond the neonatal period and to identify surgical management and outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 18 patients admitted with acute colon perforation and who received surgical treatment.

RESULTS

Age of patients ranged between 1 month and 15 years. Five patients swallowed foreign objects (two swallowed magnets), two had colon perforation secondary to a malignant tumor (both colorectal adenocarcinoma) and two were iatrogenic (one prior colonoscopy, one air enema for intussusception). There was one perforation due to chemotherapy and Amyand's hernia respectively. The remaining seven patients had unknown etiologies; five of them were diagnosed with colitis. Fifteen (83.3 %) patients underwent open laparotomy, among which four attempted laparoscopy first. Three (16.7 %) patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. Fourteen (77.8 %) patients received simple suture repairs and four (22.2 %) received colonic resections and anastomosis. Four (22.2 %) patients received a protective diverting colostomy and three (16.7 %) received an ileostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a wide range of etiology besides necrotizing enterocolitis and trauma, but a significant portion of children present with unknown etiology. Type of surgery elected should be dependent on the patient's etiology, disease severity and experience of surgeons.

A contemporary prospective review of 205 consecutive patients with penetrating colon injuries

BACKGROUND

Management of colon injuries has significantly evolved in the recent decades resulting in considerably decreased morbidity and mortality. We set out to investigate penetrating colon injuries in a high-volume urban academic trauma center in South Africa.

METHODS

All patients with penetrating colon injuries admitted between 1/2015 and 1/2018 were prospectively enrolled. Data collection included demographics, injury profile and outcomes. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome was morbidity.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and five patients were included in the analysis. Stab and gunshot wounds constituted 18% and 82% of the cases, respectively. Mean age was 28.9 (10.2) years and 96.1% were male. Median injury severity score (ISS) and penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI) were 16 (9-25) and 19 (10-26), respectively. A total of 47.8% of the patients had a complication per Clavien-Dindo classification. Colon leak rate was 2.4%. Wound and abdominal organ/space infection rate was 15.1 and 6.3%, respectively. Overall in-hospital mortality was 9.3%. Risk factors for mortality were higher ISS and PATI, shock on admission, need for blood transfusion, intra-abdominal vascular injury, damage control surgery, and extra-abdominal severe injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary overall complication rate remains high in penetrating colon injuries, however, anastomotic leak rate is decreasing. Colon injury associated mortality is related to overall injury burden and hemorrhage rather than to colon injuries.

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.

[Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery]

The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative complications theologically. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery aims to reduce fecal materials and bacterial count with the objective to decrease SSI rate, including AL. Based on many observational data, meta-analysis and multicenter randomized control trials (RTC), non-MBP did not increase AL rates or SSI and other complications in colon and even rectal surgery. In 2011 Cochrane review, there is no significant benefit MBP compared with non-MBP in colon surgery and also no better benefit MBP compared with rectal enemas in rectal surgery. However, in surgeon's perspectives, MBP is still in widespread surgical practice, despite the discomfort caused in patients, and general targeting of the colon microflora with antibiotics continues to gain popularity despite the lack of understanding of the role of the microbiome in anastomotic healing. Recently, there are many evidence suggesting that MBP+oral antibiotics (OA) should be the growing gold standard for colorectal surgery. However, there are rare RCT studies and still no solid evidences in OA preparation, so further studies need results in both MBP and OA and only OA for colorectal surgery. Also, MBP studies in patients with having minimally invasive surgery (MIS; laparoscopic or robotics) colorectal surgery are still warranted. Further RCT on patients having elective left side colon and rectal surgery with primary anastomosis in whom sphincter saving surgery without MBP in these MIS and microbiome era.

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.

Current U.S. Pre-Operative Bowel Preparation Trends: A 2018 Survey of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Members

Background: The effect of an oral antibiotic preparation prior to colorectal surgery was first examined and exalted in the 1973 paper by Nichols et al. Since this commencement, enthusiasm for the oral antibiotic regimen has waxed and waned reflecting the literature focused on this topic over the past 40 years. Polling colorectal surgeons of define current practices has been performed at intervals throughout the years and has demonstrated a trend to decline in the practice. The most recent publication surveying U.S. practices was in 2010, which reported a minority, 36%, use of oral antibiotics prior to elective colorectal surgery; a marked downtrend from the 88% use described in 1990. Since this last survey, the colorectal surgery community has performed considerable research examining the benefit of oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation. This manuscript evaluates the current use of oral antibiotics in colorectal surgery in the U.S. and how practice trends have developed in response to current recommendations in the literature. Methods: An electronic survey was created and distributed to U.S. colorectal surgeons to evaluate current opinions and practice trends. A total of 359 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members responded. A review of the recent literature pertaining to pre-operative bowel practices and outcomes was performed to compare with current practices. Results: A significant majority (83.2%) of respondents use pre-operative oral antibiotics routinely, and 98.6% routinely use mechanical bowel preparation. The use of a combination of parenteral antibiotics, oral antibiotics, and mechanical bowel preparation is reported by 79.3%. The most commonly employed oral antibiotic regimen is neomycin and metronidazole. The most common mechanical bowel preparation is polyethylene glycol (PEG). The most common parenteral antibiotics are cefazolin and metronidazole. There was no statistically significant difference in this practice by geographic region, Board-certified status, or practice setting. Conclusion: The majority of colorectal surgeons employ a combination of oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation, and parenteral antibiotics prior to colorectal surgery. This is consistent across geographic regions, despite Board certification status or practice setting, and is reflective of the recommendations based on recent literature.

Acute Surgical Decision-Making in Abdominal Trauma Is Not Altered by Race or Socioeconomic Status

Two main procedures are performed on patients suffering from colonic perforation, diverting colostomy and primary tissue repair. We investigated patient race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) that predicted surgical outcomes after blunt or penetrating trauma. A retrospective analysis was performed using data from the National Trauma Data Bank for three years (2013–2015). We identified patients who presented with primary colonic injury and subsequent colon operation (n = 5431). Operations were grouped into three classes: colostomy, ileostomy, and nonostomy. Multiple linear and logistic regressions were performed to assess how race and insurance status are associated with the primary outcome of interest (ostomy formation) and secondary outcomes such as length of stay, time spent in ICU, and surgical site infection. Neither race/ethnicity nor insurance status proved to be reliable predictors for the formation of an ostomy. Patients who received either a colostomy or ileostomy were likely to have longer stays (OR [odds ratio]: 5.28; 95% CI [confidence interval]: 3.88–6.69) (OR: 11.24; 95% CI: 8.53–13.95), more time spent in ICU (2.73; 1.70–3.76) (7.98; 6.10–9.87), and increased risk for surgical site infection (1.32; 1.03–1.68) (2.54; 1.71–3.78). Race/ethnicity and SES were not reliable predictors for surgical decision-making on the formation of an ostomy after blunt and penetrating colonic injury. However, the severity of the injury as calculated by Injury Severity Score and the number of abdominal injuries were both associated with higher rates of colostomy and ileostomy. These data suggest that surgical decision-making is dependent on perioperative patient presentation and, not on race, ethnicity, or SES.

The effect of a concomitant renal injury on the outcome of colonic trauma

BACKGROUND

The management of colon injuries has steadily evolved over the course of the last half century. So too has the management of renal trauma. It is not clear from the literature as to whether concomitant colon and renal injuries carry increased risk of morbidity and mortality, and whether this combination of injuries necessitates a specifically tailored management approach.

METHODS

A retrospective review was carried out for the period January 2012 to December 2016. All patients over the age of 18 years who were subjected to laparotomy for penetrating trauma (gunshot wounds or stab wounds) and who sustained an intra-operatively proven colonic injury were included in this study. Operative management and outcomes were investigated. A direct comparison was made between patients with a combined colonic and renal injury and those with only a colonic injury.

RESULTS

Over the five-year period a total of 268 patients sustained a colonic injury. The 239 patients with a colonic injury (Group A) were compared to the 29 patients with a combined colonic and renal injury (Group B). Regarding the management of the colonic injuries, there were no differences in the rates of primary repair, anastomosis, exteriorization, or damage control surgery between groups A and B. As for the management of the renal injury, 14 were not explored at laparotomy; in 12 a nephrectomy was performed and in 3 the renal injury was repaired. The nephrectomy cohort were more likely to have undergone damage control surgery, to be admitted to ICU, to receive a colostomy, and had higher mortality. While there was no difference in the need for damage control surgery or mortality between groups, Group B had a significantly greater need for ICU admission. Morbidity was similar between the two groups - in particular, there was no difference in the rates of either gastro-intestinal complications or acute kidney injury between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with combined colon and renal injuries, it seems reasonable to treat each organ on its own merit, without the expectation of increased morbidity or mortality. In the non-damage control setting, most colonic injuries may be safely repaired, and a peri-renal haematoma that is not expanding or actively bleeding may be safely left alone.

Role of oral antibiotics for prophylaxis against surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery

Over the past few decades, surgeons have made many attempts to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI) after elective colorectal surgery. Routine faecal diversion is no longer practiced in elective colonic surgery and mechanical bowel preparation is on the verge of being eliminated altogether. Intravenous antibiotics have become the standard of care as prophylaxis against SSI for elective colorectal operations. However, the role of oral antibiotics is still being debated. We review the available data evaluating the role of oral antibiotics as prophylaxis for SSI in colorectal surgery.

Bowel injury following gynecological laparoscopic surgery

Background

Bowel injury remains a serious complication of gynecological laparoscopic surgery. We aimed to review the literature on this topic, combined with personal experiences, so as to give recommendations on how to avoid and manage this complication.

Methods

We performed a narrative review on bowel injury following gynecological laparoscopic surgery using PubMed covering prevention, diagnosis, and management. Search terms used were laparoscopy, gynaecology, injury, bowel, prevention, treatment.

Results

Important principles of prevention include proper pre-operative evaluation and increased laparoscopic surgical skills and knowledge. High clinical suspicion is crucial for early diagnosis. Diagnostic workup of suspected cases includes serial abdominal examination, measuring inflammatory markers, and performing imaging studies including abdominal ultrasound and CT scan. When bowel injury is recognized during the first laparoscopic procedure then laparoscopic primary suturing could be tried although laparotomy may be needed. When diagnosis is delayed, then laparotomy is the treatment of choice. The role of robotic surgery and three-dimensional laparoscopic gynecological surgery on bowel injury needs to be further assessed.

Conclusion

Early recognition of bowel injury is crucial for a favorable clinical outcome. A combined collaboration between gynecologists and general surgeons is important for timely and proper decisions to be made.

The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in the emergency departments worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs are early recognition, adequate source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Prompt resuscitation of patients with ongoing sepsis is of utmost important. In hospitals worldwide, non-acceptance of, or lack of access to, accessible evidence-based practices and guidelines result in overall poorer outcome of patients suffering IAIs. The aim of this paper is to promote global standards of care in IAIs and update the 2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections.

Preoperative Bowel Preparation before Elective Bowel Resection or Ostomy Closure in the Pediatric Patient Population Has No Impact on Outcomes: A Prospective Randomized Study

The role of preoperative bowel prep in the pediatric surgical population is uncertain. We performed a randomized prospective study to evaluate noninferiority between the presence or absence of a preoperative bowel prep in elective pediatric bowel surgery on postoperative outcomes. Patients aged three months to 18 years were recruited and randomized to the bowel prep group or the no bowel prep group. Patients were evaluated in-hospital and at postoperative clinic visits. Thirty-two patients were recruited; 18 in the bowel prep group and 14 in the no bowel prep group. There was no statistical difference ( P > 0.05) in complications between the groups. Complications were observed in five patients in each group (27.8% and 35.7%, respectively). In the bowel prep group, two (11.1%) had wound infection (vs three, 21.4%), 0 had an intra-abdominal abscess (vs one, 7.1%), one (5.6%) had sepsis (vs one, 7.1%), one (5.6%) had an anastomotic leak (vs 0), and three (16.7%) had a bowel obstruction (vs one, 7.1%). There were no extra-abdominal complications. There were no significant differences in complications between the two groups. Further research is warranted, but may require a multi-institutional trial to recruit sufficient numbers to make conclusions about the significance of the need for bowel prep.

Indications for and outcome of primary repair compared with faecal diversion in the management of traumatic colon injury

AIM

Injuries of the colon are a serious sequel of abdominal trauma owing to the associated morbidity and mortality. This study aims to assess postoperative outcome and complications of faecal diversion and primary repair of colon injuries when applied according to established guidelines for the management of colon injuries.

METHOD

This retrospective study was conducted on 110 patients with colon injuries. Guided by estimation of risk factors, patients were managed either by primary repair alone, repair with proximal diversion or diversion alone.

RESULTS

There were 102 (92.7%) male patients and 8 (7.3%) female patients of median age 38 years. Thirty-seven were managed by primary repair and 73 by faecal diversion. Colon injuries were caused by penetrating abdominal trauma in 65 and blunt trauma in 45 patients. Forty-three patients were in shock on admission, and were all managed by faecal diversion. Forty patients developed 84 complications after surgery. Primary repair had a significantly lower complication rate than faecal diversion (P = 0.037). Wound infection was the commonest complication. The overall mortality rate was 3.6%.

CONCLUSION

Primary repair, when employed properly, resulted in a significantly lower complication rate than faecal diversion. Significant predictive factors associated with a higher complication rate were faecal diversion, severe faecal contamination, multiple colon injuries, an interval of more than 12 h after colon injury and shock.

Percutaneous damage control with self-expanding foam: pre-hospital rescue from abdominal exsanguination

Non-compressible intra-abdominal hemorrhage results in significant morbidity and mortality in contemporary trauma medicine. Regrettably, many deaths from non-compressible hemorrhage are attributable to potentially survivable injuries. A self-expanding polyurethane foam has been developed for rapid, percutaneous damage control of exsanguinating abdominal hemorrhage, for patients not expected to survive to definitive surgical care. Foam intervention creates a temporary, commensal, hemostatic environment within the abdominal cavity. This tropism away from exsanguination physiology creates a hemostatic bridge such that the patient may reach definitive surgical intervention. This review article summarizes the existing literature characterizing the safety and efficacy of this intervention, along with a study in recently deceased patients that enables dose translation from animal models to human beings.

Chronic safety assessment of hemostatic self-expanding foam: 90-day survival study and intramuscular biocompatibility

BACKGROUND

Noncompressible hemorrhage is a significant cause of preventable death in trauma, with no effective presurgical treatments. We previously described the efficacy and 28-day safety of a self-expanding hemostatic foam in swine models. We hypothesized that the 28-day results would be confirmed at a second site and that results would be consistent over 90 days. Finally, we hypothesized that the foam material would be biocompatible following intramuscular implantation.

METHODS

Foam treatment was administered in swine following a closed-cavity splenic injury. The material was explanted after 3 hours, and the animals were monitored to 28 days (n = 6) or 90 days (n = 4). Results were compared with a control group with injury alone (n = 6 at 28 days, n = 3 at 90 days). In a separate study, foam samples were implanted in rabbit paravertebral muscle and assessed at 28 days and 90 days relative to a Food and Drug Administration-approved polyurethane mesh (n = 3 per group).

RESULTS

All animals survived the acute phase of the study, and the foam animals required enterorrhaphy. One animal developed postoperative ileus and was euthanized; all other animals survived to the 28-day or 90-day end point without clinically significant complications. Histologic evaluation demonstrated that remnant particles were associated with a fibrotic capsule and mild inflammation. The foam was considered biocompatible in 28-day and 90-day intramuscular implant studies.

CONCLUSION

Foam treatment was not associated with significant evidence of end-organ dysfunction or toxicity at 28 days or 90 days. Remnant foam particles were well tolerated. These results support the long-term safety of this intervention for severely bleeding patients.

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.

The impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) based on the occurrence of anastomosis leakage, surgical site infection (SSI), and severity of surgical complication when performing elective colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MBP and non-MBP patients were matched using propensity score. The outcomes were evaluated according to tumor location such as right- (n=84) and left-sided colon (n=50) and rectum (n=100). In the non-MBP group, patients with right-sided colon cancer did not receive any preparation, and patients with both left-sided colon and rectal cancers were given one rectal enema before surgery.

RESULTS

In the right-sided colon surgery, there was no anastomosis leakage. SSI occurred in 2 (4.8%) and 4 patients (9.5%) in the non-MBP and MBP groups, respectively. In the left-sided colon cancer surgery, there was one anastomosis leakage (4.0%) in each group. SSI occurred in none in the rectal enema group and in 2 patients (8.0%) in the MBP group. In the rectal cancer surgery, there were 5 anastomosis leakages (10.0%) in the rectal enema group and 2 (4.0%) in the MBP group. SSI occurred in 3 patients (6.0%) in each groups. Severe surgical complications (Grade III, IV, or V) based on Dindo-Clavien classification, occurred in 7 patients (14.0%) in the rectal enema group and 1 patient (2.0%) in the MBP group (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Right- and left-sided colon cancer surgery can be performed safely without MBP. In rectal cancer surgery, rectal enema only before surgery seems to be dangerous because of the higher rate of severe postoperative complications.

The safety of primary repair or anastomosis in high-risk trauma patients

PURPOSE

There is currently not enough data regarding the management of bowel injury and the results of primary repair or resection and anastomosis in high-risk trauma patients. We aimed to determine whether there were any short-term (30 days) postoperative complications relevant to the primary reconstruction of such bowel injuries.

METHOD

In a retrospective study, all trauma patients who underwent a definite laparotomy after penetrating or blunt injury in our institution during the last decade were identified. The study group consisted of those who underwent primary repair or resection and anastomosis of the small or large bowel or both. Patients who died within 72 h of admission, who had only serosal injuries or who received resection and diversion, were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventeen of the trauma patients who were treated at our institution during the study period had bowel injuries. Thirteen fit our criteria. All of them had at least one risk factor, and 61.5% of them had at least three risk factors for anastomotic or suture line disruption. Overall, 35 repairs and anastomoses took place. Only one patient developed clinical anastomotic leakage, resulting in a fistula, which did not require re-operation.

CONCLUSION

Our study contributes to the controversial issue of post-traumatic bowel reconstruction in high-risk trauma patients, and suggests that primary reconstruction is feasible and can provide a good outcome.

A rare case of penetrating rectal injury

Penetrating injuries of the colon and rectum have been reported earlier and are often associated with injuries of adjacent viscera such as bladder, uterus or vagina, prostate and seminal vesicles as well as iliac vessels. But this case is rare not only regarding the mechanism of injury but also with respect to the depth of penetration, with the foreign body having almost reached the thorax after entry through the anal orifice.

The Safety of Elective Colorectal Surgery without Mechanical Bower Preparation

Objectives To reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications and anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery, preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is performed routinely. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of primary anastomosis in elective colorectal surgery without MBP. Methods From Jan. 2005 to Dec. 2006, three hundred and seventy-nine patients of elective colorectal surgery with primary anastomosis were performed with MBP in 352 cases (Prep group) and without MBP in 24 cases (Non-prep group). For preoperative MBP, 4 liters of polyethylene glycol solution was administered. Postoperative infectious complications and other morbidity were reviewed with medical records and prospectively collected data. Results Demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The overall rate of abdominal infectious complications (wound infection, anastomotic leak) was 2.9 % in the Prep group and 9 % in the Non-prep group (P &gt; 0.05). Anastomotic leak occurred in nine patients (2.6%) in the Prep group and one (4.5%) in the Non-prep group. Conclusions The incidence of infectious complications after elective colorectal surgery without MBP did not differ significantly compare to that with MBP. However, prospective, randomized clinical trial is needed to assess the safety of primary anastomosis in elective colorectal surgery without MBP.

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.

Prognostic factors for traumatic bowel injuries: killing time

BACKGROUND

Intestinal rupture/perforation after abdominal trauma is a rare complication, but it is related to significant morbidity and mortality. Our objective is to identify determinants of prognosis in patients surgically treated for a bowel injury (small bowel and colon) after abdominal trauma.

METHODS

The present study is a retrospective analysis of 102 patients seen at our hospital during a 10-year period in whom laparotomy for traumatic bowel injury was performed. Predictors for morbidity and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate analysis models.

RESULTS

Mean age at diagnosis was 40 years, and most patients were male. There was a slight preponderance of blunt abdominal trauma, and the most frequent mechanism of injury was motor vehicle accident. In 75% of patients there was a small bowel lesion, and the colon was affected in 47%. There was no statistical relation between stoma construction and mortality, but an increase in morbidity was ultimately dependent on the severity of the underlying trauma. The univariate determinants of mortality were the new injury severity score (NISS) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, the presence of blunt trauma and multiple intestinal or extra-abdominal lesions, and the elapsed time to surgery. The occurrence of postoperative complications was related to all these factors, as well as to tachycardia, hypotension, and bleeding. In multivariate analysis ASA score (p = 0.015), NISS (p = 0.002), time to surgery (p = 0.007), and presence of colonic lesions (p = 0.02) were identified as independent prognostic factors for postoperative morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

The only modifiable determinant of morbidity seems to be the time to surgery. Only an expeditious evaluation and diagnosis and prompt surgical intervention can improve the prognosis of these patients.

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.

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.

Colon anastomosis after damage control laparotomy: recommendations from 174 trauma colectomies

BACKGROUND

Primary colonic anastomosis in trauma patients has been demonstrated to be safe. However, few studies have investigated this in the setting of damage control laparotomy. We hypothesized that colonic anastomosis for trauma patients requiring an open abdomen (OA) would have a higher anastomotic leak (AL) rate when compared with patients having an immediate abdominal closure following trauma laparotomy.

METHODS

We performed a cohort comparison study of all trauma patients who underwent colectomy, between the years 2004 and 2009. Exclusion criteria were mortality within 24 hours of admission or colectomy for indications unrelated to injury. Data collected included age, gender, injury severity score, mechanism, length of stay, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship of OA to our primary outcome measure, AL.

RESULTS

Totally, 174 patients met study criteria. Fecal diversion was performed in 58 patients, and colonic anastomosis was performed in the remaining 116 patients. Patients with OA had a clinically significant increase in AL rate compared with immediate abdominal closure (6% vs. 27%, p=0.002). Logistic regression demonstrated that OA was independently associated with AL, with OA patients having more than a sixfold increase in odds of AL compared with those who were closed (odds ratio=6.37, p=0.002, area under the receiver operator curve=0.72). Transfusion requirement and left-sided anastomosis were risk factors for leak.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a colonic anastomosis and an OA have an unacceptably high leak rate compared with those who undergo reconstruction with immediate closure. Given the significant risk of AL, colonic anastomosis should not be routinely performed in patients with OA.

Primary repair of colon injuries: clinical study of nonselective approach

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to determine the role of primary repair and to investigate the possibility of expanding indications for primary repair of colon injuries using nonselective approach.

METHODS

Two groups of patients were analyzed. Retrospective (RS) group included 30 patients managed by primary repair or two stage surgical procedure according to criteria published by Stone (S/F) and Flint (Fl). In this group 18 patients were managed by primary repair. Prospective (PR) group included 33 patients with primary repair as a first choice procedure. In this group, primary repair was performed in 30 cases.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable regarding age, sex, and indexes of trauma severity. Time between injury and surgery was shorter in PR group, (1.3 vs. 3.1 hours). Stab wounds were more frequent in PR group (9:2), and iatrogenic lesions in RS group (6:2). Associated injuries were similar, as well as segmental distribution of colon injuries. S/F criteria and Flint grading were similar.In RS group 15 primary repairs were successful, while in two cases relaparotomy and colostomy was performed due to anastomotic leakage. One patient died. In PR group, 25 primary repairs were successful, with 2 immediate and 3 postoperative (7-10 days) deaths, with no evidence of anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study justify more liberal use of primary repair in early management of colon injuries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN94682396.

6 year prospective clinical trial of primary repair versus diversion colostomy in colonic injury cases

Management pathway of colonic injury has been evolving over last three decades. There has been general agreement that surgical methods dealing with colonic injury did not affect the outcome but there are certain independent risk factors for complications. These risk factors are still not clear and studies are going on to specify these risk factors. The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate that primary closure of colonic injury without colostomy in selective patient is safe. This was a prospective study of 6 year duration. All the colonic injuries operated and divided into two groups: primary repair and colostomy. The criteria for exclusion of primary repair taken were; injury time >8 hour, patient need >4 unit of blood transfusion till surgery, devascularization injury of colon, any pre existing disease of bowel, any severe co morbid disease like uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, tuberculosis, malignancy etc. Both groups are analyzed by assessing complications with special emphasis on leak rate. Patients died within 72 hours of admission were excluded from study. Total 55 colonic injury cases operated and primary repair was done in 35 cases and colostomy in 20 cases. There was 1 mortality in colostomy group and no major morbidity in both groups. The complications in primary repair group were; 1 leak (treated conservatively), 5 wound infections 1 incisional hernia and 1 intra abdominal abscess. In colostomy group 8 cases of wound infections, 2 incisional hernias and 2 intra abdominal abscesses occurred. Primary repair of colon injuries can be safely done in selected patient.

Bowel preparation: current status

Despite emerging evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses questioning its use, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to hold an accepted place among surgeons. MBP has been administered to patients for over a century, and though the methods and agents used for intestinal cleansing have evolved over time, many surgeons still embrace MBP as a necessary, essential regimen. The accepted rationale for MBP includes evacuation of stool to allow visualization of the luminal surfaces as well as to reduce the fecal flora, which is believed to translate into lower risk of infectious and anastomotic complications at surgery. The authors describe the history of MBP as it relates to colorectal surgery and review the agents currently used for mechanical bowel preparation. Additionally, they summarize the recent trials, meta-analyses, and other emerging data from the medical literature that suggest MBP offers no benefit as a preoperative measure and question its place in current surgical practice.

Colon and rectal surgery for cancer without mechanical bowel preparation: one-center randomized prospective trial

Background

Mechanical bowel preparation is routinely done before colon and rectal surgery, aimed at reducing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. The aim of the study was to assess whether elective colon and rectal surgery can be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

Methods

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

Results

Two hundred forty four patients were included in the study, 120 in group A and 124 in group B. Demographic characteristics, type of surgical procedure and type of anastomosis did not significantly differ between the two groups. There was no difference in the rate of surgical infectious complications between the two groups but the overall infectious complications rate was 20.0% in group A and 11.3% in group B (p .05). Wound infection (p = 0.18), anastomotic leak (p = 0.52), and intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.36) occurred in 9.2%, 5.8%, and 5.0% versus 4.8%, 4.0%, and 2.4%, respectively. No mechanical bowel preparation seems to be safe also in rectal surgery.

Conclusions

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

Morbidity predicting factors of penetrating colon injuries

THE AIM of this study was to analyze patients suffering from penetrating colon injuries management, clinical outcomes and factors, which predict higher morbidity and complications rate. METHODS: this was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from patients with injured colon from 1995 to 2008. Age, time till operation, systolic blood pressure, part of injured colon, fecal contamination, PATI were registered. Monovariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine higher morbidity predictive factors. RESULTS: 61 patients had penetrating colon injuries. Major fecal contamination of the peritoneal cavity and systolic blood pressure lower than 90 mmHg are independent factors determining the fecal diversion operation. Primary repair group analysis establish that major fecal contamination and systolic blood pressure lower than 90 mmHg OR=4,2 and 0,96 were significant risk factors, which have contributed to the development of postoperative complications. And systolic blood pressure lower than 90 mmHg and PATI 20 predict OR=0,05 and 2,61 higher morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal contamination of the peritoneal cavity and hypotension were determined to be crucial in choice of performing fecal diversion or primary repair. But the same criteria and PATI predict higher rate of postoperative complications and higher morbidity.

Incidence of Anastomotic Leak in Patients Undergoing Elective Colon Resection without Mechanical Bowel Preparation: Our Updated Experience and Two-year Review

Mechanical bowel preparation before elective colon resection has recently been questioned in the literature. We report a prospective study evaluating the anastomotic leak rate in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. One hundred fifty-three patients undergoing elective colon resection from July 2006 to June 2008 were enrolled into this Institutional Review Board-approved study. All patients were operated on by a single surgeon at a single institution. No patients received mechanical bowel preparation. Of the 153 patients enrolled, 51.6 per cent had a colorectostomy, 32 per cent had an ileocolostomy, 10.4 per cent had a colocolostomy 5.2 per cent had an ileoanal anastomosis, and 0.6 per cent had an ileorectostomy performed. A total of eight patients (5.2%) developed an anastomotic leak. Of these patients, four required reoperation, three were managed with percutaneous drainage, and one was managed with antibiotics alone. Five of the eight patients who developed an anastomotic leak had significant preoperative comorbidities, including neoadjuvant radiation therapy, diabetes mellitus, end-stage renal disease, prior anastomotic leak, and tobacco use. Elective colon resection can be performed safely without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Vigilance for anastomotic leak must be maintained at all times, especially in patients with comorbidities that predispose to anastomotic leak.

Independent Predictors of Treatment Modality for Penetrating Colon Injury

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the independent factors of the treatment of penetrating colon injuries in a teaching and research hospital in light of some of the most commonly cited considerations affecting the decision as to whether to perform primary repair or divert.

METHODS

Hospital records of patients between January 2004 and January 2007 were reviewed retrospectively. Fifty-seven patients were included and divided into two groups. Group A consisted of patients (n = 43) who had primary repair or resection and anastomosis, and Group B consisted of patients (n = 14) who had diverting colostomy. The degree of fecal contamination was assessed by reviewing the detailed operative dictation. The type of colon injury, as determined from the colon injury scale (CIS) of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), and the penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI) were recorded.

RESULTS

Age, sex, presence of shock on admission, location of the injury, and colon-related or non-colonrelated complications between the two groups were not significant. Stab or gunshot injury, operation time, degree of fecal contamination (grade 1/2/3), transfusion, PATI score, hospital stay, and associated organ injury were significantly different in the two groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that CIS, fecal contamination, transfusion, PATI and delayed operation affect the decision about the procedure, primary repair can be performed safely on patients with penetrating colon injuries.

Management of colon injury after percutaneous renal surgery

Percutaneous access to the kidney has gained widespread use during the last decades. Iatrogenic colon injury is an uncommon but serious complication. Diagnosis is sometimes delayed, and treatment strategies are still controversial, including conservative management, colostomy, or primary repair. The aim of this review is to identify optimal diagnostic and treatment options for such injuries.

Management of colorectal injuries during operation iraqi freedom: patterns of stoma usage

BACKGROUND

Management of penetrating colorectal injuries in the civilian trauma population has evolved away from diversionary stoma into primary repair or resection and primary anastomosis. With this in mind, we evaluated how injuries to the colon and rectum were managed in the ongoing war in Iraq.

METHODS

The records of Operation Iraqi Freedom patients evacuated to National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) from March 2004 until November 2005 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with colorectal injuries were identified and characterized by the following: (1) injury type; (2) mechanism; (3) associated injuries; (4) Injury Severity Score; (5) levels of medical care involved in patient treatment; (6) time interval(s) between levels of care; (7) management; and (8) outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were identified as having either colon or rectal injury. The average ISS was 24.4 (range, 9-54; median 24). On average, patients were evaluated and treated at 2.5 levels of surgically capable medical care (range, 2-3; median 2) between time of injury and arrival at NNMC, with a median of 6 days from initial injury until presentation at NNMC (range, 3-11). Management of colorectal injuries included 7 primary repairs (30.4%), 3 resections with anastomoses (13.0%), and 13 colostomies (56.6%). There was one death (4.3%) and three anastomotic leaks (30%). Total complication rate was 48%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon injury severity, the complex nature of triage and medical evacuation, and the multiple levels of care involved for injured military personnel, temporary stoma usage should play a greater role in military casualties than in the civilian environment for penetrating colorectal injuries.