Primary repair of colon injuries: clinical study of nonselective approach

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Performance of primary repair on colon injuries sustained from low-versus high-energy projectiles

Among various reasons, colon injuries may be caused by low- or high-energy firearm bullets, with the latter producing a temporary cavitation phenomenon. The available treatment options include primary repair and two-stage management, but recent studies have shown that primary repair can be widely used with a high success rate. This paper investigates the differences in performance of primary repair on these two types of colon injuries. Two groups of patients who sustained colon injuries due to single gunshot wounds, were retrospectively categorized based on the type of bullet. Primary colon repair was performed in all patients selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Stone and Fabian's criteria). An almost absolute homogeneity was attained among the groups in terms of age, latent time before surgery, and four trauma indexes. Only one patient from the low-energy firearm projectile group (4%) developed a postsurgical complication versus nine patients (25.8%) from the high-energy group, showing statistically significant difference (p = 0.03). These nine patients experienced the following postsurgical complications: pneumonia, abscess, fistula, suture leakage, and one multiorgan failure with sepsis. Previous studies concluded that one-stage primary repair is the best treatment option for colon injuries. However, terminal ballistics testing determined the projectile's path through the body and revealed that low-energy projectiles caused considerably lesser damage than their high-energy counterparts. Primary colon repair must be performed definitely for low-energy short firearm injuries but very carefully for high-energy injuries. Given these findings, we suggest that the treatment option should be determined based not only on the bullet type alone but also on other clinical findings.

Laparoscopic direct suture of perforation after diagnostic colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Increasing colonoscopy use increases the incidence of iatrogenic colon perforation. Operative management of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforation is diverse. This study retrospectively reviewed our experiences in treating diagnostic colonoscopy-associated bowel perforation by laparoscopic direct suturing.

METHODS

A total of 89,014 patients underwent diagnostic colonoscopy at our institution during the past 6 years. We identified 17 iatrogenic perforations (0.019 %) that were all managed by laparoscopic direct suturing.

RESULTS

Perforation patients included 11 men and 6 women (mean age 60 ± 18 years). Sixteen patients (94 %) had severe comorbidities or previous abdominal surgery. Perforations were noticed by the endoscopist during the procedure in 13 cases (76 %) while the remaining 4 cases (24 %) were diagnosed within 24 h after colonoscopy. The estimated mean longitudinal perforation length was 4.4 ± 2.1 cm. Mean operation time was 2.3 ± 0.6 h, without significant blood loss or other severe complication. The mean time to bowel function return was 3.4 ± 1.2 days, the mean time to initial oral intake was 3.9 ± 2.0 days and the mean hospitalization duration was 6.8 ± 4.2 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic colonoscopic perforation occurred in less than 2/10,000 patients when colonoscopy was performed by experienced operators in our endoscopy center. Most of the perforation patients had severe comorbidities, to which the surgeon should pay close attention during colonoscopy. Laparoscopic primary suture of colon perforations caused by diagnostic colonoscopy is a safe and feasible repair method. Further efforts will definitively assess the feasibility of routinely using laparoscopic direct suture to repair colon perforations.

Rectal trauma in adults

Rectal trauma is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality and generally affects young males due to its aetiology of violent crime and vehicular collision. Historically, management has followed principles derived from military practice, with faecal diversion, pre-sacral drainage and distal washout being mandatory. Civilian trauma studies examining management of colon and rectum injuries from the early 1950s identified major differences in the level of energy transfer between civilian and military wounds, given that the vast majority are penetrating in nature. This led to a re-evaluation of the necessity for these interventions for all rectal injuries. Current management depends on whether the injury is intra- or extraperitoneal, with those above the peritoneal reflection being readily accessible and amenable to treatment as for colon injury. Extraperitoneal injuries remain difficult to access and direct repair is usually impossible; the mainstay of treatment in most instances remains faecal diversion. The role of pre-sacral drainage and distal washout remains contentious in the realms of civilian rectal injury but retains a place in battlefield or other high-energy transfer rectal injuries where aggressive early management reduces septic complications. This article reviews the historical and current evidence for the management of both civilian and military extraperitoneal rectal injuries.