Suture line failure in intra-abdominal colonic trauma: is there an effect of segmental variations in blood supply on outcome?

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.

Outcome of trauma-related emergency laparotomies, in an era of far-reaching specialization

Background

Far reaching sub-specialization tends to become obligatory for surgeons in most Western countries. It is suggested that exposure of surgeons to emergency laparotomy after trauma is ever declining. Therefore, it can be questioned whether a generalist (i.e., general surgery) with additional differentiation such as the trauma surgeon, will still be needed and can remain sufficiently qualified. This study aimed to evaluate volume trends and outcomes of emergency laparotomies in trauma.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed in the University Medical Center Utrecht between January 2008 and January 2018, in which all patients who underwent an emergency laparotomy for trauma were included. Collected data were demographics, trauma-related characteristics, and number of (planned and unplanned) laparotomies with their indications. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were complications, length of ICU, and overall hospital stay.

Results

A total of 268 index emergency laparotomies were evaluated. Total number of patients who presented with an abdominal AIS > 2 remained constant over the past 10 years, as did the percentage of patients that required an emergency laparotomy. Most were polytrauma patients with a mean ISS = 27.5 (SD ± 14.9). The most frequent indication for laparotomy was hemodynamic instability or ongoing blood loss (44%).Unplanned relaparotomies occurred in 21% of the patients, mostly due to relapse of bleeding. Other complications were anastomotic leakage (8.6%), intestinal leakage after bowel contusion (4%). In addition, an incisional hernia was found in 6.3%. Mortality rate was 16.7%, mostly due to neurologic origin (42%). Average length of stay was 16 days with an ICU stay of 5 days.

Conclusion

This study shows a persistent number of patients requiring emergency laparotomy after (blunt) abdominal trauma over 10 years in a European trauma center. When performed by a dedicated trauma team, this results in acceptable mortality and complication rates in this severely injured population.

Evolution of the operative management of colon trauma

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

The management of colonic trauma in the damage control era

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

Safety of performing a delayed anastomosis during damage control laparotomy in patients with destructive colon injuries

BACKGROUND

Recent studies report the safety and feasibility of performing delayed anastomosis (DA) in patients undergoing damage control laparotomy (DCL) for destructive colon injuries (DCIs). Despite accumulating experience in both civilian and military trauma, questions regarding how to best identify high-risk patients and minimize the number of anastomosis-associated complications remain. Our current practice is to perform a definitive closure of the colon during DCL, unless there is persistent acidosis, bowel wall edema, or evidence of intra-abdominal abscess. In this study, we evaluated the safety of this approach by comparing outcomes of patients with DCI who underwent definitive closure of the colon during DCL versus patients managed with colostomy with or without DCL.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with penetrating DCI during 2003 to 2009. Severity of injury, surgical management, and clinical outcome were assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty patients with severe gunshot wounds and three patients with stab wounds were included in the analysis. DCL was required in 30 patients, all with gunshot wounds. Three patients died within the first 48 hours, three underwent colostomy, and 24 were managed with DA. Thirty-three patients were managed with standard laparotomy: 26 patients with primary anastomosis and 7 with colostomy. Overall mortality rate was 9.5%. Three late deaths occurred in the DCL group, and only one death was associated with an anastomotic leak.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing a DA in DCI during DCL is a reliable and feasible approach as long as severe acidosis, bowel wall edema, and/or persistent intra-abdominal infections are not present.