Penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: diversion or primary anastomosis? An AAST prospective multicenter study

Surgical management of injuries to the abdomen in patients with multiple and/or severe trauma- a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

Our aim was to update evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the surgical management of abdominal injuries in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries based on current evidence. This guideline topic is part of the 2022 update of the German Guideline on the Treatment of Patients with Multiple and/or Severe Injuries.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched to May 2021. Further literature reports were obtained from clinical experts. Randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and comparative registry studies were included if they compared interventions for the surgical management of abdominal injuries in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries. We considered patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, and diagnostic test accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE 2012 checklists. The evidence was synthesised narratively, and expert consensus was used to develop recommendations and determine their strength.

RESULTS

Three studies were identified. The topics of these studies were nonoperative management in haemodynamically stable patients with isolated blunt hepatic (n = 1) or splenic injuries (n = 1) and selective angioembolisation (n = 1). None of the recommendations were modified, one new recommendation was developed, and one was deleted based on the updated evidence and expert consensus. All recommendations achieved strong consensus.

CONCLUSION

The following recommendations are made. All but one of the previous guideline recommendations were confirmed. The recommendation to perform diagnostic peritoneal lavage in exceptional cases was completely deleted. An additional recommendation was made and states that the performance of a diagnostic laparoscopy can be considered in haemodynamically stable patients with penetrating trauma when there is therapeutic uncertainty.

Indocyanine green fluorescence-guided surgery in the emergency setting: the WSES international consensus position paper

BACKGROUND

Decision-making in emergency settings is inherently complex, requiring surgeons to rapidly evaluate various clinical, diagnostic, and environmental factors. The primary objective is to assess a patient's risk for adverse outcomes while balancing diagnoses, management strategies, and available resources. Recently, indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging has emerged as a valuable tool to enhance surgical vision, demonstrating proven benefits in elective surgeries.

AIM

This consensus paper provides evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations for the standardized use of ICG fluorescence imaging in emergency settings.

METHODS

Using the PICO framework, the consensus coordinator identified key research areas, topics, and questions regarding the implementation of ICG fluorescence-guided surgery in emergencies. A systematic literature review was conducted, and evidence was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. A panel of expert surgeons reviewed and refined statements and recommendations through a Delphi consensus process, culminating in final approval.

RESULTS

ICG fluorescence imaging, including angiography and cholangiography, improves intraoperative decision-making in emergency surgeries, potentially reducing procedure duration, complications, and hospital stays. Optimal use requires careful consideration of dosage and timing due to limited tissue penetration (5-10 mm) and variable performance in patients with significant inflammation, scarring, or obesity. ICG is contraindicated in patients with known allergies to iodine or iodine-based contrast agents. Successful implementation depends on appropriate training, availability of equipment, and careful patient selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced technologies and intraoperative navigation techniques, such as ICG fluorescence-guided surgery, should be prioritized in emergency surgery to improve outcomes. This technology exemplifies precision surgery by enhancing minimally invasive approaches and providing superior real-time evaluation of bowel viability and biliary structures-areas traditionally reliant on the surgeon's visual assessment. Its adoption in emergency settings requires proper training, equipment availability, and standardized protocols. Further research is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and expand its applications in urgent surgical procedures.

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.

Blunt and Penetrating Injury to the Bowel: A Review

Traumatic injuries to the small and large bowel are common and can be highly morbid. Identifying these injuries, especially in stable patients who suffer blunt trauma, can be challenging. It is critical that traumatic bowel injuries are diagnosed in a timely fashion as delays in diagnosis and treatment are associated with worse outcomes. The literature outlining the management of traumatic bowel injuries is mostly comprised of retrospective data and case reports/series. We have compiled the existing literature and relevant guidelines into a single resource for providers who care for traumatically injured patients.

Contemporary diagnosis and management of colorectal injuries: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Colorectal injuries are commonly encountered by trauma surgeons. The management of colorectal injuries has evolved significantly over the past several decades, beginning with wartime experience and subsequently refining with prospective randomized studies. Colon injuries were initially nonoperative, evolved toward fecal diversion for all, and then became anatomic based with resection and primary anastomosis with selective diversion, and now primary repair, resection with primary anastomosis, and delayed anastomosis after damage-control laparotomy are all commonplace. Rectal injuries were also initially considered nonoperative until diversion came into favor. Diversion in addition to direct repair, presacral drain placement, and distal rectal washout became the criterion standard for extraperitoneal rectal injuries until drainage and washout fell out of favor. Despite a large body of evidence, there remains a debate on the optimal management of some colorectal injuries. This article will focus on how to diagnose and manage colorectal injuries. The aim of this review is to provide an evidence-based summary of the contemporary diagnosis and management of colorectal injuries.

Pre-Operative Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect the Impact of Anastomosis Leakage in Left-Side Colorectal Surgery-A Single Center Observational Study

Despite rapid advances in colorectal surgery, morbidity and mortality rates in elective gastrointestinal surgery play a significant role. For decades, there have been tempestuous discussions on preventative measures to minimize the risk of anastomotic dehiscence. When mechanical bowel preparation before an elective procedure, one of the key hypotheses, was introduced into practice, it was assumed that it would decrease the number of infectious complications and anastomotic dehiscence. The advancements in antibiotic treatment supported the concomitant administration of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation. In the prospective study conducted at our clinic, we performed left-side colorectal procedures without prior mechanical preparation. All patients enrolled in the study underwent the surgery and were observed in the 3rd Surgical Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia, from January 2019 to January 2020. As a control group, we used a similar group of patients with MBP. Our observed group included 87 patients with tumors in the left part of their large intestine (lineal flexure, descendent colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum). Dixon laparoscopic resection was performed in 26 patients. Sigmoid laparoscopic resection was performed in 27 patients. In 12 patients, the procedure was started laparoscopically but had to be converted due to adverse anatomical conditions. The conservative approaches mostly included Dixon resections (19 patients), sigmoid colon resections (5 patients), left-side hemicolectomies (6 patients), and Miles' tumor resections, with rectal amputation (4 patients). Our study highlighted the fact that MBP does not have an unequivocal benefit for patients with colorectal infection, which has an impact on the development of anastomotic dehiscence.

Primary Repair Versus Resection for AAST Grade I and II Colon Injuries: Does the Type of Repair Matter?

INTRODUCTION

The management of traumatic colon injuries has evolved over the past two decades. Recent evidence suggests that primary repair or resection over colostomy may decrease morbidity and mortality. Data comparing patients undergoing primary repair versus resection are lacking. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing primary repair versus resection for low-grade colon injuries.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who presented with American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade I and II traumatic colon injuries to our Level I trauma center between 2011 and 2021 was performed. Patients were further dichotomized based on whether they underwent primary repair or resection with anastomosis. Outcome measures included length of stay data, infectious complications, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients met inclusion criteria. The majority of patients (76.7%) were male, and the average age was 35.6 ± 13.1 y. Most patients also underwent primary repair (80.8%). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in arrival physiology or in injury severity score. Length of stay data including hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, and ventilator days were similar between groups. Postoperative complications including pneumonia, surgical site infections, fascial dehiscence, the development of enterocutaneous fistulas, and unplanned returns to the operating room were also all found to be similar between groups. The group who underwent resection with anastomosis did demonstrate a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess development (3.1% versus 26.1%, P < 0001). Mortality between both groups was not found to be statistically significant (7.2% versus 4.3%, P = 0.4) CONCLUSIONS: For low-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma I and II) traumatic colon injuries, patients undergoing primary repair demonstrated a decreased rate of intra-abdominal abscess development when compared to patients who underwent resection with anastomosis.

Abdominal versus pelvic gunshot injuries in terms of postoperative outcomes: A cohort representing the experience of 406 cases in seven years

Objectives

Gunshot injuries have become a significant problem globally. This study aimed to assess the differences between abdominal versus pelvic gunshot injuries in terms of postoperative outcomes to determine which type of injury is more lethal.

Material and Methods

This was a cohort study carried out to compare patients who had abdominal versus pelvic gunshot injuries, to analyse the differences in the impact of the anatomical site of injury on morbidity, mortality, and disabilities in all patients who had been admitted to the hospital due to torso gunshot injuries from February 2011 to December 2018.

Results

During the study period, 406 patients suffered from torso gunshot injuries. 391 were males and 15 were females; 343 (84.4%) patients had abdominal gunshot wounds, which were considered the first group, while in the second group, there were 63 (15.6%) patients who had pelvic gunshot wounds In the first group, 328 (95.6%) patients required urgent explorative laparotomy, complications were observed in 83 (24.2%) patients, while re-operations were reported in 51 (14.9%) patients and 11 (3.2%) patients had permanent functional disabilities, and 46 (13.4%) patients passed away. In the second group, all patients were treated with urgent explorative laparotomy, 17 (27%) patients suffered from complications, re-operation occurred in 13 (20.6%) patients, permeant functional disability occurred in 17 (27%) patients, and mortality was seen in 16 (25.4%) patients.

Conclusion

Our clinical experience has shown that mortality rates and long-term disability occur at a higher rate in pelvic gunshot injuries therefore early senior surgeon input is mandatory for the potential poor outcome to be minimized.

Evaluation of the predictive effects of trauma scoring systems in colorectal injuries

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal injuries following traumas are significant causes of morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive effect of trauma scoring systems on mortality and morbidity in patients with post-traumatic colon injury.

METHODS

The records of 145 patients with colon trauma treated at Seyhan State Hospital between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Injury Seriousness Score (ISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS), and Colon Injury Score (CIS) scores were calculated for all patients. The predictive effects of scoring systems on primary outcomes of surgical treatment, complication rates, mortality, and anastomotic leaks were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 36.1 (SD ± 16.6), and the female/male ratio was 37/108. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 12 (8.2%) patients, and complications were observed in 57 (39.3%) patients. Seven (4.7%) patients died. A statistically significant relationship was observed between the increase in CIS and anastomotic leakage, morbidity, and mortality. Increases in ISS and decreases in RTS and TRISS were associated with increased morbidity and mortality, but these relationships were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

A significant relationship was observed between the increase in CIS and anastomotic leakage, morbidity, and mortality. The study suggests the need for a specific scoring system for evaluating the prognostic status in colon traumas, as ISS, RTS, and TRISS scores were not found to be significantly predictive of outcomes in this patient population.

Colonic Anastomoses Reinforced With Ethyl-2-Cyanoacrylate Compared With Polydioxanone Sutures Alone in Fecal Peritonitis: An Experimental Study in Wistar Rats

INTRODUCTION

The use of tissue adhesives has been proposed as an anastomosis reinforcement; however, their efficacy has not been evaluated in a contaminated environment. The objective of this study was to determine if the use of sutures reinforced with ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate for colonic anastomoses in the presence of fecal peritonitis, in a murine animal model, decreases the frequency of dehiscence.

METHODS

Wistar rats were used. Fecal peritonitis was established until reaching 18 hours of evolution. Then, resection and anastomosis of the colon were performed with only polydioxanone (PDS) sutures in the control group and reinforcement with ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate in the experimental group. The dehiscence frequency and burst pressure were evaluated six days after the anastomosis was performed.

RESULTS

We included 30 Wistar rats, all males, with a median age of five months and an average weight of 350.43 g. Anastomotic dehiscence was observed in 53.33% of the control group, in contrast with 13.33% of the experimental group (p = 0.020). There was no significant difference in burst pressure between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate, in an experimental murine animal model, as reinforcement in colonic anastomoses in the presence of fecal peritonitis decreases the frequency of anastomotic dehiscence, although it does not increase resistance to burst pressure.

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.

Faecal diversion remains central in the contemporary management of rectal trauma-Experience from a major trauma centre in South Africa

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides an overview of a single centre's experience with rectal injury over a decade. It hopes to use this data to provide context to our current approach to managing these injuries in the civilian setting.

THE STUDY

All patients with rectal trauma were identified from the Hybrid Electronic Medical Registry (HEMR).

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 88 patients with rectal injuries were admitted to Grey's Hospital in Pietermaritzburg. There were 80 (91 %) males and 8 (9 %) females. The median age was 31 (15-63) years. There were 9 (10 %) blunt mechanisms, 76 (86 %) penetrating mechanisms and 3 (4 %) combined blunt and penetrating mechanisms. Gunshot wounds accounted for the majority of sustained rectal trauma (71 %). There were 57 (65 %) extra-peritoneal injuries, 24 (27 %) intraperitoneal injuries and 7 (8 %) combined injuries. The grade of injury, according to the AAST grading system, was as follows, AAST 1: 16 (18 %), AAST 2: 63 (72 %), AAST 3: 7 (8 %), and AAST 4: 2 (2 %). Pre-sacral drainage and distal rectal washout were not performed. Almost all (55/57) of the extra-peritoneal rectal injuries were managed with proximal diversion (PD). There were five primary repairs (PR) performed in the extra-peritoneal rectal injury cohort. In four of these cases, this was accompanied by a PD. Of the 24 intraperitoneal rectal injuries, 15 underwent PR, of which 11 were performed in conjunction with PD. In total, 20 intraperitoneal rectal injuries underwent PD. All seven combined rectal injuries underwent PD, and three of the combined rectal injuries underwent PR with PD. There was urogenital tract associated morbidity in 8 %, gastrointestinal tract related morbidity in 8 % and septic complications in 11 %.

CONCLUSION

Rectal trauma is still associated with a high rate of rectal/urogenital and infection related morbidity. Although pre-sacral drainage and distal stump washout have been largely abandoned in civilian practice, faecal diversion currently remains the cornerstone of the management of rectal trauma in our environment. Although there was a low rate of intra-abdominal septic complications in patients who had undergone diversion, this needs to be balanced against the low rate of stoma reversal.

Contemporary management and outcomes of penetrating colon injuries: Validation of the 2020 AAST Colon Organ Injury Scale

INTRODUCTION

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Colon Organ Injury Scale (OIS) was updated in 2020 to include a separate OIS for penetrating colon injuries and included imaging criteria. In this multicenter study, we describe the contemporary management and outcomes of penetrating colon injuries and hypothesize that the 2020 OIS system correlates with operative management, complications, and outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients presenting to 12 Level 1 trauma centers between 2016 and 2020 with penetrating colon injuries and Abbreviated Injury Scale score of <3 in other body regions. We assessed the association of the new OIS with surgical management and clinical outcomes and the association of OIS imaging criteria with operative criteria. Bivariate analysis was done with χ 2 , analysis of variance, and Kruskal-Wallis, where appropriate. Multivariable models were constructed in a stepwise selection fashion.

RESULTS

We identified 573 patients with penetrating colon injuries. Patients were young and predominantly male; 79% suffered a gunshot injury, 11% had a grade V destructive injury, 19% required ≥6 U of transfusion, 24% had an Injury Severity Score of >15, and 42% had moderate-to-large contamination. Higher OIS was independently associated with a lower likelihood of primary repair, higher likelihood of resection with anastomosis and/or diversion, need for damage-control laparotomy, and higher incidence of abscess, wound infection, extra-abdominal infections, acute kidney injury, and lung injury. Damage control was independently associated with diversion and intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal infections. Preoperative imaging in 152 (27%) cases had a low correlation with operative findings ( κ coefficient, 0.13).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study to date of penetrating colon injuries and the first multicenter validation of the new OIS specific to these injuries. While imaging criteria alone lacked strong predictive value, operative American Association for the Surgery of Trauma OIS colon grade strongly predicted type of interventions and outcomes, supporting use of this grading scale for research and clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Association Between Fecal Contamination and Outcomes After Emergent General Surgery Colorectal Resection: A Post Hoc Analysis of an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Multicenter Study

Background: The impact of fecal contamination on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing emergent colorectal resection is unclear. We hypothesized that fecal contamination is associated with worse clinical outcomes regardless of operative technique. Patients and Methods: This is a post hoc analysis for an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored multicenter study that prospectively enrolled emergency general surgery patients undergoing urgent/emergent colorectal resection. Subjects were categorized according to presence versus absence of intra-operative fecal contamination. Propensity score matching (1:1) by age, weight, Charlson comorbidity index, pre-operative vasopressor use, and method of colonic management (primary anastomosis [ANST] vs. ostomy [STM]) was performed. χ² analysis was then performed to compare the composite outcome (surgical site infection and fascial dehiscence). Results: A total of 428 subjects were included, of whom 147 (34%) had fecal contamination. Propensity score matching (1:1) resulted in a total of 147 pairs. After controlling for operative technique, fecal contamination was still associated with higher odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio [OR], 2.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-4.2; p = 0.001). Conclusions: In patients undergoing urgent/emergent colorectal resection, fecal contamination, regardless of operative technique, is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Selection bias is possible, thus randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm or refute a causal relation.

Multiple portions enteral nutrition and chyme reinfusion of a blunt bowel injury patient with hyperbilirubinemia undergoing open abdomen: A case report

Blunt bowel injury (BBI) is relatively rare but life-threatening when delayed in surgical repair or anastomosis. Providing enteral nutrition (EN) in BBI patients with open abdomen after damage control surgery is challenging, especially for those with discontinuity of the bowel. Here, we report a 47-year-old male driver who was involved in a motor vehicle collision and developed ascites on post-trauma day 3. Emergency exploratory laparotomy at a local hospital revealed a complete rupture of the jejunum and then primary anastomosis was performed. Postoperatively, the patient was transferred to our trauma center for septic shock and hyperbilirubinemia. Following salvage resuscitation, damage control laparotomy with open abdomen was performed for abdominal sepsis, and a temporary double enterostomy (TDE) was created where the anastomosis was ruptured. Given the TDE and high risk of malnutrition, multiple portions EN were performed, including a proximal portion EN support through a nasogastric tube and a distal portion EN via a jejunal feeding tube. Besides, chyme delivered from the proximal portion of TDE was injected into the distal portion of TDE via a jejunal feeding tube. Hyperbilirubinemia was alleviated with the increase in chyme reinfusion. After 6 months of home EN and chyme reinfusion, the patient finally underwent TDE reversal and abdominal wall reconstruction and was discharged with a regular diet. For BBI patients with postoperative hyperbilirubinemia who underwent open abdomen, the combination of multiple portions EN and chyme reinfusion may be a feasible and safe option.

Complete transection of the descending colon following blunt abdominal trauma

We present the case of a man in his 30s who was crushed between two vehicles sustaining blunt trauma to his lower limbs and torso. The patient was in shock on arrival to the emergency department, and immediate resuscitation was given with massive transfusion protocol activation. Once the patient's haemodynamic status was stabilised, a CT scan revealed a complete colon transection. The patient was taken to the operating theatre where a midline laparotomy was performed, and the transected descending colon was managed with a segmental resection and handsewn anastomosis. The patient followed an unremarkable postoperative course, with bowels opening on day 8 postoperatively. Colon injuries are rare following blunt abdominal trauma, and a delay in diagnosis may lead to increased morbidity and mortality. As such, a low threshold for surgical intervention is recommended.

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.

Penetrating colon trauma-the effect of concomitant small bowel injury on outcome

INTRODUCTION

There is limited evidence to suggest that patients with penetrating colon injury have higher complication rates when there is concomitant small bowel (SB) injury.

AIM

We performed a retrospective study looking at outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in patients with- and without concomitant SB injury.

METHODS

We interrogated our electronic registry over an eight-year period (2012-2020) for all patients over 18 years who had sustained penetrating colon injury and who had survived beyond 72 h. Demographic data, admission physiology, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were recorded. Two groups of patients were observed: those with colonic injury (no SB injury) and those with combined colon and SB injury. Outcomes observed included leak rates, length of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 450 patients were eligible for analysis, of which 257 had colon injury without SB injury and 193 had a combination of colon and SB injury. There was no difference in mechanism of injury between groups. Admission physiology was similar between groups but arterial blood gas values were worse in the combined group. Rates of damage control surgery and ICU admission were higher in the combined group. Primary repair was done in equal proportions between groups but anastomosis was more frequently performed in the combined group. There was no difference in complication rates, including gastro-intestinal complications and suture line leaks. Length of ICU stay, LOS, and mortality were similar between groups. Univariable analysis demonstrated that the presence of concomitant small bowel injury was not an independent risk factor for colonic suture line failure or death.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence from this data that the presence of a combined penetrating colon and SB injury should change management priorities. Each injury should be treated on its own merit, in the context of the patient's physiology.

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.

WSES guidelines on blunt and penetrating bowel injury: diagnosis, investigations, and treatment

The aim of this paper was to review the recent literature to create recommendations for the day-to-day diagnosis and surgical management of small bowel and colon injuries. Where knowledge gaps were identified, expert consensus was pursued during the 8th International Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery Annual (September 2021, Edinburgh). This process also aimed to guide future research.

Reinterventions after damage control surgery

Damage control has well-defined steps. However, there are still controversies regarding whom, when, and how re-interventions should be performed. This article summarizes the Trauma and Emergency Surgery Group (CTE) Cali-Colombia recommendations about the specific situations concerning second interventions of patients undergoing damage control surgery. We suggest packing as the preferred bleeding control strategy, followed by unpacking within the next 48-72 hours. In addition, a deferred anastomosis is recommended for correction of intestinal lesions, and patients treated with vascular shunts should be re-intervened within 24 hours for definitive management. Furthermore, abdominal or thoracic wall closure should be attempted within eight days. These strategies aim to decrease complications, morbidity, and mortality.

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.

Meta-analysis on surgical management of colonic injuries in trauma: to divert or to anastomose?

BACKGROUND

Primary repair or resection with anastomosis (PR/A) has been gaining increasing recognition for traumatic colonic injuries, with the need for faecal diversion (FD) especially those of penetrating etiology being questioned. However, the role of PR/A in critically ill patients is still controversial with concerns pertaining to safety and anastomotic leak.

AIMS AND METHODS

We performed a systemic review of studies comparing outcomes of FD versus PR/A in traumatic colonic injuries. A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA guidelines utilizing three electronic databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library resources. Mortality and anastomotic leak rates are identified as the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Data extracted include mortality rates, type of surgical intervention, surgical complications, and need for DC (damage control) surgery.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified comprising 11 retrospective, 2 prospective cohort and 1 randomized trial with a total of 2071 patients. Six studies included patients that underwent DC surgery. The overall mortality rate was 3.77% and was higher in the FD group compared to PR/A group (5.38% vs 2.49%, p = 0.07). 71.3% of patients underwent PR/A with an overall leak rate of 4.63%. There was no difference in intra-abdominal collections between the PR/A and FD groups. In the subgroup analysis, anastomotic leak rate was significantly higher in the DC group compared to non-DC group (16.7% vs 3.2%, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis supports PR/A in stable patients with traumatic colonic injuries. FD should be considered in critically ill patients who require DC surgery as leak rates are significantly higher.

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.

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.

Penetrating colonic trauma and damage control surgery: Anastomosis or stoma?

BACKGROUND

The management of colon injuries in damage control surgery (DCS) remains controversial.

METHODS

A retrospective study investigating outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in patients who survived beyond the initial repeat laparotomy (IRL) after DCS was performed. Patients over 18 years with penetrating colon injury and who underwent DCS from 2012 to 2020 were included from our electronic trauma registry. Demographic data, admission physiology and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were reviewed. Patients were classified into three groups: primary repair of non-destructive injuries at DCL, delayed anastomosis of destructive injuries at IRL and diversion of destructive injuries at IRL. Outcomes observed included leak rates, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, morbidities, mortality and colon-related mortality.

RESULTS

Out of 584 patients with penetrating colonic trauma, 89 (15%) underwent DCS. After exclusions, 74 patients were analysed. Mean age was 32.8 years (SD 12.5); 67 (91%) were male. Mechanism of injury was gunshot in 63 (85%) and stab 11 (15%) patients. Seventeen patients underwent primary repair at DCS, of which one leaked. Twenty patients underwent delayed anastomosis at IRL. Of these, five (25%) developed leaks. Mortality was significantly higher for those with an anastomotic leak compared to those without (p < 0.001). Thirty-seven patients were diverted at IRL. Overall mortality (p = 0.622) and colon-related mortality (p = 0.592) were not significantly different across groups.

CONCLUSION

Delayed anastomosis at IRL following DCL was associated with a leak rate of 25% in this study. When anastomotic leak did occur, it was associated with significant mortality. Delayed anastomosis should only be undertaken in highly selected patients.

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%.

Colorectal resection in emergency general surgery: An EAST multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE

Evidence comparing stoma creation (STM) versus anastomosis after urgent or emergent colorectal resection is limited. This study examined outcomes after colorectal resection in emergency general surgery patients.

METHODS

This was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored prospective observational multicenter study of patients undergoing urgent/emergent colorectal resection. Twenty-one centers enrolled patients for 11 months. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were recorded. χ, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to describe outcomes and risk factors for surgical complication/mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 439 patients were enrolled (ANST, 184; STM, 255). The median (interquartile range) age was 62 (53-71) years, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 4 (1-6). The most common indication for surgery was diverticulitis (28%). Stoma group was older (64 vs. 58 years, p < 0.001), had a higher CCI, and were more likely to be immunosuppressed. Preoperatively, STM patients were more likely to be intubated (57 vs. 15, p < 0.001), on vasopressors (61 vs. 13, p < 0.001), have pneumoperitoneum (131 vs. 41, p < 0.001) or fecal contamination (114 vs. 33, p < 0.001), and had a higher incidence of elevated lactate (149 vs. 67, p < 0.001). Overall mortality was 13%, which was higher in STM patients (18% vs. 8%, p = 0.02). Surgical complications were more common in STM patients (35% vs. 25%, p = 0.02). On multivariable analysis, management with an open abdomen, intraoperative blood transfusion, and larger hospital size were associated with development of a surgical complication, while CCI, preoperative vasopressor use, steroid use, open abdomen, and intraoperative blood transfusion were independently associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights a tendency to perform fecal diversion in patients who are acutely ill at presentation. There is a higher morbidity and mortality rate in STM patients. Independent predictors of mortality include CCI, preoperative vasopressor use, steroid use, open abdomen, and intraoperative blood transfusion. Following adjustment by clinical factors, method of colon management was not associated with surgical complications or mortality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

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.

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.

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.

Outcomes of Primary Repair and Anastomosis for Traumatic Colonic Injuries in a Tertiary Trauma Center

Background: Surgical management for traumatic colonic injuries has undergone major changes in the past decades. Despite the increasing confidence in primary repair for both penetrating colonic injury (PCI) and blunt colonic injury (BCI), there are authors still advocating for a colostomy particularly for BCI. This study aims to describe the surgical management of colonic injuries in a level 1 metropolitan trauma center and compare patient outcomes between PCI and BCI. Methods: Twenty-one patients who underwent trauma laparotomy for traumatic colonic injuries between January 2011 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Results: BCI accounted for 67% and PCI for 33% of traumatic colonic injuries. The transverse colon was the most commonly injured part of the colon (43%), followed by the sigmoid colon (33%). Primary repair (52%) followed by resection-anastomosis (38%) remain the most common procedures performed regardless of the injury mechanism. Only two (10%) patients required a colostomy. There was no significant difference comparing patients who underwent primary repair, resection-anastomosis and colostomy formation in terms of complication rates (55% vs. 50% vs. 50%, p = 0.979) and length of hospital stay (21 vs. 21 vs. 19 days, p = 0.991). Conclusions: Regardless of the injury mechanism, either primary repair or resection and anastomosis is a safe method in the management of the majority of traumatic colonic 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.

Analysis of over 2 decades of colon injuries identifies optimal method of diversion: Does an end justify the means?

INTRODUCTION

Conflicting evidence exists regarding the definitive management of destructive colon injuries. Although diversion with an end ostomy can theoretically decrease initial complications, it mandates a more extensive reversal procedure. Conversely, anastomosis with proximal loop ostomy diversion, while simplifying the reversal, increases the number of suture lines and potential initial morbidity. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of diversion technique on morbidity and mortality in patients with destructive colon injuries.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with destructive colon injuries managed with diversion from 1996 to 2016 were stratified by demographics, severity of shock and injury, operative management, and timing of reversal. Outcomes, including ostomy complications (obstruction, ischemia, readmission) and reversal complications (obstruction, abscess, suture line failure, fascial dehiscence), were compared between patients managed with a loop versus end colostomy. Patients with rectal injuries and who died within 24 hours were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 115 patients were identified: 80 with end colostomy and 35 with loop ostomy. Ostomy complications occurred in 22 patients (19%), and 11 patients (10%) suffered reversal complications. There was no difference in ostomy-related (2.9% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.99) mortality. For patients without a planned ventral hernia (PVH), there was no difference in ostomy complications between patients managed with a loop versus end colostomy (12% vs. 18%, p = 0.72). However, patients managed with a loop ostomy had a shorter reversal operative time (95 vs. 245 minutes, p = 0.002) and reversal length of stay (6 vs. 10, p = 0.03) with fewer reversal complications (0% vs. 36%, p = 0.02). For patients with a PVH, there was no difference in outcomes between patients managed with a loop versus end colostomy.

CONCLUSION

For patients without PVH, anastomosis with proximal loop ostomy reduced reversal-related complications, operative time, LOS, and hospital charges without compromising initial morbidity. Therefore, loop ostomy should be the preferred method of diversion, if required, following destructive colon injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level IV.

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.

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.

Contemporary Trends and Outcomes of Blunt Traumatic Colon Injuries Requiring Resection

BACKGROUND

After traumatic injury, primary anastomosis after colon resection has overtaken ostomy diversion. Improved technology facilitating primary anastomosis speed and integrity may have driven this change. Trends in ostomy versus anastomosis have yet to be quantified, and recent literature comparing outcomes is incomplete.

METHODS

The National Trauma Databank (2007-2014) was queried for all blunt colon injuries requiring resection. Patients were dichotomized into study groups based on whether they underwent ostomy creation. Ostomy creation frequency was compared over time. After subgrouping patients by colon injury location, multivariate regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and evaluated the impact of ostomy on clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 13,949 colon injuries requiring colectomy were identified. Ostomy frequency did not vary by study year (P = 0.536). Univariate analysis showed that patients undergoing ostomy were older (median, 40 versus 32; P < 0.001) and more often had comorbidities (65% versus 56%; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that ostomy creation was significantly associated with lower mortality after sigmoid colon injury (odds ratio, 0.512; P = 0.011) and higher rates of unplanned reoperation after transverse colon injury (odds ratio, 3.135; P = 0.048). Across all colon injuries, ostomies were significantly associated with longer hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, and ventilator days.

CONCLUSIONS

Ostomy creation for colonic injury has reached an equilibrium trough. The impact of ostomy creation varies by not only clinical outcome but also injury location. Further study is needed to define the optimal surgical management for blunt colon injuries requiring resection.

Rectal foreign body causing perforation: Case report and literature review

Background

Clinicians must maintain an index of suspicion to diagnose an anorectal foreign body (FB). The patient may not be forthcoming with information secondary to embarrassment or possibly psychiatric issues. Providers must express empathy and compassion while maintaining nonjudgmental composure. Despite accounts of anal FB insertion, this pathology is lacking level one evidence-based surgical algorithms.

Case presentation

A 46-year-old male psychiatric patient presented in septic shock, complaining of lower abdominal/pelvic pain starting 1 week prior. His past medical history was significant for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and noncompliance with medications. CT of the abdomen/pelvis revealed a rectal perforation with free air and a FB which appeared to be a screwdriver. Fluid resuscitation and broad-spectrum antibiotics were administered. In the operating room, after unsuccessful transrectal removal, an exploratory laparotomy was performed. The metallic end of the screwdriver had perforated the rectosigmoid. Resection of the perforated rectum with removal of the screwdriver, incision and drainage of a large right buttock abscess and colostomy was performed. The patient recovered and was discharged to behavioral health. At 2 weeks follow-up the patient was doing well with a functioning colostomy and reversal was planned for later this year.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion when encountering psychiatric patients with nonspecific lower abdominal or anorectal pain with inconsistent presentations. Controversy exists regarding the type of surgical treatment in case of anorectal perforation. More research is needed to provide surgeons with evidence-based standardized methods for dealing with these rare pathologies.

•

Maintaining a high index of suspicion when encountering patients with nonspecific lower abdominal and/or rectal pain.

•

Despite the numerous reports of anal FB trauma there are no cases documenting a unique incident with a screwdriver being inserted through the anus.

•

Controversy exists regarding the type of surgical treatment.

Recognition and Management of Colonic Perforation following Endoscopy

Although rare, perforation can be a devastating complication of colonoscopy. Incidence ranges from 0.012 to 0.65% during diagnostic procedures and is higher in therapeutic procedures. Early diagnosis and management are of paramount importance to decrease morbidity. Diagnostic imaging after colonoscopy can reveal extraintestinal air, but overall clinical status including leukocytosis, fever, pain, and peritonitis is equally important to determine management. With the expanding availability of complex endoscopic interventions, an increasing number of perforations are recognized during colonoscopy or immediately afterward based on high degree of suspicion. Colonoscopic management of these early perforations may be feasible and avoid the morbidity of surgery. Patients who require surgery may be managed with laparoscopic or open surgical techniques. Surgical management may consist of primary repair of the injury, resection with anastomosis, or resection with ostomy. Mechanical bowel preparation before endoscopy decreases fecal contamination after perforation, often obviating the need for ostomy creation.

Management of penetrating intraperitoneal colon injuries: A meta-analysis and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUND

The management of penetrating colon injuries in civilians has evolved over the last four decades. The objectives of this meta-analysis are to evaluate the current treatment regimens available for penetrating colon injuries and assess the role of anastomosis in damage control surgery to develop a practice management guideline for surgeons.

METHODS

Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, a subcommittee of the Practice Management Guidelines section of EAST conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE and EMBASE articles from 1980 through 2017. We developed three relevant problem, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) questions regarding penetrating colon injuries. Outcomes of interest included mortality and infectious abdominal complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were identified for analysis, of which 16 met criteria for quantitative meta-analysis and included 705 patients considered low-risk in six prospective randomized studies. Seven hundred thirty-eight patients in 10 studies undergoing damage control laparotomy and repair or resection and anastomosis (R&A) were included in a separate meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of high-risk patients undergoing repair or R&A was not feasible due to inadequate data.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult civilian patients sustaining penetrating colon injury without signs of shock, significant hemorrhage, severe contamination, or delay to surgical intervention we recommend that colon repair or R&A be performed rather than routine colostomy. In adult high-risk civilian trauma patients sustaining penetrating colon injury, we conditionally recommend that colon repair or R&A be performed rather than routine colostomy. In adult civilian trauma patients sustaining penetrating colon injury who had damage control laparotomy, we conditionally recommend that routine colostomy not be performed; instead, definitive repair or delayed R&A or anastomosis at initial operation should be performed rather than routine colostomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.

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.

Postoperative CD4 counts predict anastomotic leaks in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma

INTRODUCTION

The influence of trauma- and surgical stress-induced decrease of CD4 count on anastomotic leaks after penetrating abdominal trauma has to date not been investigated. A prospective study was performed to explore the effect of CD4 count 24 h after surgery on the anastomotic leak rate and to identify risk factors for anastomotic leaks.

METHODS

This was a prospective study including 98 patients with small or large bowel resection and subsequent anastomosis due to penetrating abdominal trauma. Univariate analysis identified risk factors for the development of anastomotic leak and also investigated the predictive value of the CD4 count for this complication.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients 23 patients (23%) were HIV-infected. The overall leak rate was 13%. Univariate analysis including all potential risk factors with p-values<0.05 identified six factors leading to a significantly higher rate of anastomotic complications: postoperative CD4 count<250 cells/μl, postoperative albumin <30 g/L, penetrating abdominal trauma index≥25, gunshot wound as mechanism of injury, blood transfusion requirement >6units and delayed anastomosis after damage control surgery. Survival rates were analysed with the χ² test and did not show a significantly higher mortality rate in patients with low CD4 count. The negative impact of trauma and subsequent surgery on the cell mediated immunity was demonstrated by the fact that 55 (73%) of the HIV-negative patients had a CD4 count less than 500 cells/μl 24 h postoperatively. HIV-infection had no significant influence on the leak rate, however all HIV infected patients that developed an anastomotic leak died.

CONCLUSION

A low post-operative CD4 count is a predictor for anastomotic leaks irrespective of HIV-serostatus. Low postoperative serum albumin, high injury severity, gunshot wound as mechanism of injury, blood transfusion requirement >6 units and delayed anastomosis were further risk factors for anastomotic complications. Postoperative CD4 count and serum albumin should be considered in the decision making process of performing an anastomosis or diverting stoma for patients after "clip and drop" of the bowel as part of damage control surgery.