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

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.

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.

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.

The impact of colon injuries on the outcome of gunshot wounds to the abdomen

PURPOSE

Factors predicting morbidity and mortality in patients with colon-related gunshot injuries and the management of these injuries are not always straightforward. This aimed to assess the impact of abdominal gunshot wounds with colonic injuries on patients' overall outcomes.

METHODS

This cross-sectional prospective observational study compared patients with colon injuries and without colon injuries. Data was collected from admission, theatre and postoperative care. Patients were recruited between 1 January 2020 and 20 October 2021.

RESULTS

Of 132 patients with abdominal gunshot injuries, 71 (54.0%) had colon injuries. The colon injury group had a higher incidence of laparotomy wound sepsis (p<0.0001), bullet exit wound infection (p<0.0001), tract necrotizing fasciitis (p<0.0001), relook laparotomies (p<0.0001) and a longer hospital stay (p<0.0001). Septicaemia (p=0.002) or anastomotic leak (p=0.041) was associated with a penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI) ≥25. Most patients who developed tract necrotizing fasciitis did not have their tract debrided/ lavaged (p=0.004). The type of colon repair did not influence the length of hospital stay (p=0.688) or the development of a colon-related complication (p=0.578). Between 18 and 25 years (p<0.0001) and >2 organs injured (p=0.018) were associated with colon-related complications. Patients between 18 and 25 years were 4.748 times more likely to develop a colon-related complication (p=0.046).

CONCLUSION

Gunshot wounds to the abdomen with associated colonic injuries had a worse outcome with an increased risk of developing wound infections. There is no difference in the operative management of colonic injury. Patients between the ages of 18 and 25 years or >2 organs injured are more likely to develop a complication.

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.

The effect of mechanical bowel preparation on postoperative complications in laparoscopic right colectomy: a retrospective propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

To assess whether full bowel preparation affects 30-day surgical outcomes in laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all elective laparoscopic right colectomies performed for colonic adenocarcinoma between Jan 2011 and Dec 2021. The cohort was divided into two groups-no bowel preparation (NP) group and patients who received full bowel preparation (FP), including oral and mechanical cathartic bowel preparation. All anastomoses were extracorporeal stapled side-to-side. The two groups were compared at baseline and then were matched using propensity score based on demographic and clinical parameters. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative complication rate, mainly anastomotic leak (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rate.

RESULTS

The original cohort included 238 patients with a median age of 68 (SD 13) and equal M:F ratio. Following propensity score matching, 93 matched patients were included in each group. Analysis of the matched cohort showed a significantly higher overall complication rate in the FP group (28 vs 11.8%, p = 0.005) which was mostly due to minor type II complications. There were no differences in major complication rates, SSI, ileus, or AL rate. Although operative time was significantly longer in the FP group (119 vs 100 min, p ≤ 0.001), length of stay was significantly shorter in the FP group (5 vs 6 days, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aside from a shorter hospital stay, full mechanical bowel preparation for laparoscopic right colectomy does not seem to have any benefit and may be associated with a higher overall complication rate.

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.

Laparoscopic Versus Laparotomy Surgical Interventions for Trauma Patients With Single Upper Left Quadrant Penetrating Injuries: Analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Dataset

BACKGROUND

We aim to identify patient cohorts where laparoscopy can be safely utilized with comparable or better outcomes to laparotomy among patients with single penetrating LUQ injuries with a hypothesis that compared to laparotomy, laparoscopy may be associated with equal or improved outcomes of low injury severity patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the ACS-TQP-Participant Use File 2016-2019 dataset. Patients with single LUQ penetrating injuries were included. Primary outcome was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included: risk-adjusted complication rates, hospital length-of-stay (H-LOS), and ICU-LOS. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression with reliability adjustments to account for variations in practice were performed.

RESULTS

Of 4149 patients analyzed, 3571 (86.1%) underwent laparotomy, 489 (11.8%) underwent laparoscopy, and 89 (2.1%) underwent laparoscopy-to-laparotomy conversion. Adjusted mortality rates were not significantly different among all study cohorts (P > .05). Compared to laparoscopy, adjusted odds of complications were 4.3-fold higher for all patients who underwent laparotomy and 4-fold higher for laparoscopy-to-laparotomy (LtL) patients (P < .05). Diaphragmatic injuries were associated with significantly increased odds of undergoing LtL, whereas sustaining a colonic injury, gastric injury, hepatic injury, or requiring PRBC transfusions were associated with significantly increased odds of undergoing laparotomy (P < .05). H-LOS (days) was significantly longer for patients who underwent laparotomy compared to laparoscopy (3.9 ± 4.0 vs. 10.8 ± 13.4, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy may be considered a viable alternative to laparotomy for hemodynamically stable adult patients with single penetrating LUQ injuries of low injury burden validating our hypothesis. Laparoscopy may be less safe for patients with associated diaphragmatic, colonic, or hepatic injuries.

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.

Penetrating colon trauma - outcomes related to single versus multiple colonic suture injuries

INTRODUCTION

There is no conclusive evidence to guide surgical management in the presence of multiple colonic injuries as opposed to a single colonic injury, and whether multiple colonic suture lines are associated with worse outcomes than single suture lines.

AIM

We reviewed the outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in relation to whether patients had single versus multiple colonic suture lines (primary repair or anastomosis) following laparotomy.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted at a major trauma centre in South Africa from (2012-2020) for all patients over 18 years who had sustained penetrating colon injury.

RESULTS

541 cases were included: 409 with single suture line and 54 with multiple suture lines. There were no differences between groups in terms of mechanism of injury (gunshot vs stab; p = 0.328), Injury Severity Score (p = 0.071), or Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index (p = 0.396). Admission lactate was worse for multiple suture line patients (p = 0.049), but no other blood gas parameters were different, and there was no higher incidence of damage control surgery (p = 0.558) or ICU admission (p = 0.156) for this group. There was a higher rate of diversion in the multiple suture line group (p < 0.001). Univariable logistic regression did not show an increased risk of gastro-intestinal complications, suture line leak rate, or mortality for multiple suture lines compared to single.

CONCLUSION

It appears that there is no appreciable difference in outcome between patients with a single colonic suture line compared to patients with more than one suture line following trauma laparotomy. In light of this, each injury should be treated on its own merit, in the context of the patient's overall physiological condition, without undue fear of leaving the patient with more than one colonic suture line. However, judicious use of diversion remains advisable.

Validation of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale for Penetrating Colon Injuries

In 2020, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) published a revision of the organ injury scale (OIS) for bowel injuries. The update included for the first time a separate OIS for penetrating colon injuries as well as imaging criteria. To validate the new OIS and its correlation with outcomes, we performed a retrospective review of patients with penetrating colon injuries (AIS<3 in other body regions) between 2016 and 2020 at a single institution. Sixty-six patients met inclusion criteria. Most were young (29 years median) and male (90%). All underwent operative intervention and 23 (34%) had pre-operative imaging. Imaging grade was higher than operative grade in 11 patients (48%). Higher AAST operative grade was associated with a higher likelihood of resection and anastomosis or colostomy, need for damage control laparotomy, and development of intra-abdominal abscess and acute kidney injury. A multicenter study is underway to confirm these findings.

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.

Penetrating Colon Trauma-the Effect of Injury Location on Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence to suggest that the more distal a penetrating colonic injury, the poorer its expected outcome, prompting consideration of diversion rather than anastomosis when faced with left colonic injury. The clinical outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in relation to their anatomical location within the colon were reviewed.

METHODS

A review was performed over eight years (2012-2020) of all patients over 18 years who had sustained penetrating colon injury and presented to our trauma centre in South Africa. Direct comparison was made between right colon vs left colon injuries.

RESULTS

A total of 450 patients were included; right colon: 260, left colon: 190. Gunshots predominated in the right colon, and the PATI was higher in this group. There were minimal differences in admission physiology and blood gas parameters between groups, but higher damage control surgery and ICU admission rates for the right colon group. There were similar rates of primary repair, anastomosis, and stoma between groups. Leak rates were no different between the two groups, and although overall complication rates were higher for the right colon, there was no difference with regard to gastro-intestinal and other complications, nor for mortality. While regression analysis did identify PATI to be a risk factor for overall complications and mortality, it failed to do so for anastomotic leak.

CONCLUSION

Our study did not demonstrate any difference in anastomotic leak rates or mortality between right vs left colonic injury. We recommend that all colonic injuries should be treated on their own merit, balanced against the patient's condition, regardless of anatomical location within the colon.

Management of the injured bowel: preserving bowel continuity as a gold standard

BACKGROUND

Management of bowel traumatic injuries is a challenge. Although anastomotic or suture leak remains a feared complication, preserving bowel continuity is increasingly the preferred strategy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of such a strategy.

METHODS

All included patients underwent surgery for bowel traumatic injuries at a high volume trauma center between 2007 and 2017. Postoperative course was analyzed for abdominal complications, morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 133 patients, 78% had small bowel injuries and 47% had colon injuries. 87% of small bowel injuries and 81% of colon injuries were treated with primary repair or anastomosis, with no difference in treatment according to injury site (p = 0.381). Mortality was 8%. Severe overall morbidity was 32%, and abdominal complications occurred in 32% of patients. Risk factors for severe overall morbidity were stoma creation (p = 0.036), heavy vascular expansion (p = 0.005) and a long delay before surgery (p = 0.023). Fistula rate was 2.2%; all leaks occurred after repairing small bowel wounds.

CONCLUSION

Primary repair of bowel injuries should be the preferred option in trauma patient, regardless of the site-small bowel or colon-of the injury. Stoma creation is an important factor for postoperative morbidity, which should be weighed against the risk of an intestinal suture or anastomosis.

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%.

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.

[Penetrating abdominal trauma]

The management of patients with penetrating abdominal trauma has significantly changed in recent years. While exploratory laparotomy was the gold standard in Germany in all patients up to the 1970s, selective nonoperative management (SNOM) is increasingly being discussed in hemodynamically stable patients without pathological findings in computed tomography (CT) scan or extended focussed assessment with sonography for trauma (eFAST). A standard algorithm taking a balance between invasiveness, patient safety and the use of resources into account has still to be implemented in Germany. The presented algorithm includes an immediate laparotomy in hemodynamically unstable patients as damage control surgery followed by a second look procedure after 48 h. Hemodynamically stable patients should primarily undergo diagnostic laparoscopy and be treated by early total care surgery, depending on the clinical and diagnostic imaging findings. Patients without clinical symptoms or pathological findings in imaging studies should be treated according to SNOM with close clinical controls.

Damage Control Laparotomy: High-Volume Centers Display Similar Mortality Rates Despite Differences in Country Income Level

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive analysis of trauma care between high-, middle-, and low-income countries (HIC/MIC/LIC) is needed to improve global health. Comparison of HIC and MIC outcomes after damage control laparotomy (DCL) for patients is unknown. We evaluated DCL utilization among patients treated at high-volume trauma centers in the USA and South Africa, an MIC, hypothesizing similar mortality outcomes despite differences in resources and setting.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of prospectively collected trauma databases from participating centers was performed. Injury severity, physiologic, operative data and post-operative outcomes were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences between HIC/MIC for the primary outcome of mortality.

RESULTS

There were 967 HIC and 602 MIC patients who underwent laparotomy. DCL occurred in 144 MIC patients (25%) and 241 HIC (24%) patients. Most sustained (58%) penetrating trauma with higher rates in the MIC compared to the HIC (71 vs. 32%, p = 0.001). Between groups, no differences were found for admission physiology, coagulopathy, or markers of shock except for increased presence of hypotension among patients in the HIC. Crystalloid infusion volumes were greater among MIC patients, and MIC patients received fewer blood products than those in the HIC. Overall mortality was 30% with similar rates between groups (29 in HIC vs. 33% in MIC, p = 0.4). On regression, base excess and penetrating injury were independent predictors of mortality but not patient residential status.

CONCLUSION

Use and survival of DCL for patients with severe abdominal trauma was similar between trauma centers in HIC and MIC settings despite increased penetrating trauma and less transfusion in the MIC center. While the results overall suggest no gap in care for patients requiring DCL in this MIC, it highlights improvements that can be made in damage control resuscitation.

Case report: Evisceration of abdomen after blunt trauma

INTRODUCTION

Abdominal evisceration is uncommon after blunt abdominal trauma; therefore, it warrants urgent laparotomy. We report a young adult male who sustained multiple injuries due to a high impact mechanism resulting in blunt abdominal injury and underwent numerous laparotomies.

CASE REPORT

In a high-speed motorcycle accident, a twenty-six-year-old male sustained a direct, blunt injury to his abdomen, which resulted in a right hemothorax, perforation of the stomach, and small bowel. Multiple mesenteric vessels tear, a retroperitoneal hematoma, liver, and pancreatic injury. The abdominal wall split transversely, extruding intact bowel. After resuscitation, according to the ATLS protocol, the patient underwent eight laparotomies for damage control. After 45 days in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit, then 11 days in the surgical ward, he was discharged in a satisfactory condition. Eight months later, he was admitted electively for ileostomy reversal, which was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

Patients with high trauma mechanisms have high mortality and morbidity rate. Blunt injury with eviscerated abdominal contents requires prompt, expeditious, and timely intervention, particularly at the initial operative intervention with damage control procedures, both prompt management and structured approach, were tailored depending in the magnitude of the injury. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory throughout the period of treatment until recovery and rehabilitation.