A ten-year study of penetrating injuries of the colon

Colon injuries in the presence of complete spinal cord injury: Primary repair or colostomy?

BACKGROUND

Complete spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with severe colon dysmotility and therefore may be associated with higher risk of leak following primary repair or anastomosis for concomitant colon injury.

METHODS

TQIP database study, patients with complete SCI and associated colon injuries who underwent primary repair (PR) or resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) were compared to those who underwent ostomy alone using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients treated with a colostomy were matched with 215 treated with PR or RPA. Patients treated with colostomy were more likely to develop severe sepsis post-operatively (13.1 ​% vs 4.2 ​%, p ​= ​0.004). Subgroup analysis, comparing colostomy versus PR or colostomy versus RPA, showed again a higher incidence of postoperative severe sepsis in the colostomy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary repair and/or RPA are associated with a lower incidence of postoperative severe sepsis than colostomy and should be considered in patients with combined SCI and colon injury.

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.

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.

Pattern of Presentation and Outcome of Adult Patients with Abdominal Trauma - A 7-Year Retrospective Study in a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital

Introduction

Abdominal trauma is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries. There is a paucity of trauma data in this region and this study aimed to show the pattern of presentation and outcome of patients with abdominal trauma at a North-Central Nigerian Teaching Hospital.

Methods

This was a retrospective, observational study of patients with abdominal trauma who presented at the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital from January 2013 to December 2019. Patients with clinical and/or radiological evidence of abdominal trauma were identified, and data extracted and analyzed.

Results

A total of 87 patients were included in the study. There were 73 males and 14 females (5.2:1) with a mean age of 34.2 years. Blunt abdominal injury occurred in 53 (61%) patients with 10 patients (11%) having concomitant extra-abdominal injuries. A total of 105 abdominal organ injuries occurred in 87 patients with the small bowel being the most frequently injured organ in penetrating trauma, while in blunt abdominal injury, the spleen was most commonly injured. A total of 70 patients (80.5%) had emergency abdominal surgery with a morbidity rate of 38.6% and negative laparotomy rate of 2.9%. There were 15 deaths in the period accounting for 17% of patients with sepsis as the most common cause of death (66%). Shock at presentation, late presentation >12 h, need for perioperative intensive care unit admission, and repeat surgery were associated with a higher risk of mortality (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Abdominal trauma in this setting is associated with a significant amount of morbidity and mortality. Typical patients present late and with poor physiologic parameters often resulting in an undesirable outcome. There should be steps targeted at preventive policies focused on reducing the incidence of road traffic crashes, terrorism, and violent crimes as well as improving health care infrastructure to cater to this specific group of patients.

Is New York State good at managing hollow viscus injury?

BACKGROUND

There are an estimated 100,000 cases of abdominal injury (ABI) in the USA, annually resulting in over $12 billion in direct medical cost and $18 billion in lost productivity. This study assesses the timeliness, safety, and efficacy of the surgical management of abdominal injuries (ABIs), hollow viscus injuries (HVIs), and colonic injuries (CIs) for patients residing in New York State (NYS).

METHODS

Using data from NYS's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), we identified all trauma patients with ABI admitted between 2006 and 2015. We subdivided ABI into HVI and CI using diagnosis and procedure codes and examined processes of care and outcomes adjusting for patient characteristics, injury severity score, structural, and process indicators.

RESULTS

We identified 31,043 hospitalized patients with ABI, 71% were incurred from blunt forces. Most patients with ABI (72%) were treated at a Level I/II trauma center (TC) and 7% patients were transferred to Level I/II TC. Failure to be treated at Level I/II TC was associated with 16% increased hazard of death. HVI was diagnosed in 23% of ABI patients (n = 7294); 18% experienced delayed hollow viscus repair (dHVR); dHVR was associated with a 76% increased hazard of death. CI was diagnosed in 9% of ABI patients (n = 2921) and 18% experienced dHVR. Seventy-five percent of CI were repaired primarily (n = 1354). Less than 37% of stomas were reversed by 4 years of index trauma.

CONCLUSION

Most abdominal trauma in NYS was caused by motor vehicle accidents, falls, and assault. dHVR and not being treated at Level I/II TC were associated with worse outcomes. More research is needed to reduce under-triage and delays in the operative treatment of blunt abdominal trauma.

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.

Incidence of, Risk Factors for, and Mortality Associated With Severe Acute Kidney Injury After Gunshot Wound

IMPORTANCE

Acute kidney injury increases the risk of mortality in hospitalized patients. However, incidence of severe acute kidney injury (SAKI) and its association with mortality in civilians with gunshot wounds (GSWs) is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of and risk factors associated with SAKI and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (AKI-D) after GSWs and the association of SAKI and AKI-D with mortality among civilians in the United States.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included civilians with GSW reported to the National Trauma Data Bank between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015. Torso GSWs were included in study; GSWs to the head were excluded. The data were analyzed between September and November 2018.

EXPOSURE

Civilians with GSW.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incidence of SAKI and AKI-D; association of SAKI and AKI-D with mortality.

RESULTS

Most of the 64 059 civilian GSWs affected men (57 431 [89.7%]) and racial/ethnic minorities (36 205 [56.5%] African American individuals; 9681 [15.1%] Hispanic individuals). Incidence of SAKI was 2.3% (1450 of 64 059), and incidence of AKI-D was 0.9% (588 of 64 059). On multivariate analysis, SAKI was associated with older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; P < .001), male sex (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.12-1.66; P = .002), diabetes (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.20-2.00; P = .001), hypertension (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.46-2.11; P < .001), Glasgow Coma Scale score (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99; P = .002), sepsis (OR, 13.83; 95% CI, 11.77-16.24; P < .001), hollow viscus injury (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 2.05-2.59; P < .001), and injury severity score (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; P < .001); AKI-D was associated with systolic blood pressure (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P < .001), sepsis (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.04; P = .001), and injury severity score (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; P = .001). Mortality was significantly higher in patients with AKI-D (167 of 588 patients [28.4%]) compared with patients with SAKI (172 of 862 [20.0%]) and no SAKI or AKI-D (5521 of 62 609 [8.8%]) (P < .001). Mortality was associated with older age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01; P < .001), systolic blood pressure (OR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.997-0.998; P < .001), Glasgow Coma Scale score (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.87-0.88; P < .001), SAKI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.93-2.79; P < .001), AKI-D (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.12-1.90; P < .001), hollow viscus injury (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.76-1.98; P < .001), and higher injury severity score (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01; P < .001). After matching for variables except SAKI or AKI-D, patients with SAKI were twice as likely to die than patients without SAKI (320 of 1391 [23.0%] vs 158 of 1391 [11.4%]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, SAKI among civilians who experienced GSWs was associated with mortality.

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.

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

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

Progress and pitfalls in treatment of colorectal injury

Based on the previous experience of war wound treatment, the treatment of colorectal injury has been changing constantly. Also, since the 1980s, the progress of severe trauma treatment such as CT examinations and damage control strategies has had a profound impact on the treatment of colorectal injury. This article systematically reviews the clinical manifestations, imaging findings, and endoscopic examinations of colorectal injuries, and lists injury assessment pitfalls such as neglecting colorectal injury in blunt wounds, being misdirected by negative sign or supine X-rays, strict indications for laparotomy exploration, or intro-operative omission. The progress of emergency surgery such as staged surgery for colorectal injury, surgical way of colorectal injury during damage control strategy, and treatment of rectal injury in extraperitoneal section is also described in detail. In addition, the pitfalls for emergency treatment are described, including ignoring effects of massive crystal fluid resuscitation on colorectal anastomosis, attaching no importance on the technical points of the colonic injury operation, and performing improper suture for abdominal incisions.

Management of Destructive Colon Injuries after Damage Control Surgery

After the World War II, fecal diversion became the standard of care for colon injuries, although medical, logistic, and technical advancements have challenged this approach. Damage control surgery serves to temporize immediately life-threatening conditions, and definitive management of destructive colon injuries is delayed until after appropriate resuscitation. The bowel can be left in discontinuity for up to 3 days before edema ensues, but the optimal repair window remains within 12 to 48 hours. Delayed anastomosis performed at the take-back operation or stoma formation has been reported with variable results. Studies have revealed good outcomes in those undergoing anastomosis after damage control surgery; however, they point to a subgroup of trauma patients considered to be "high risk" that may benefit from fecal diversion. Risk factors influencing morbidity and mortality rates include hypotension, massive transfusion, the degree of intra-abdominal contamination, associated organ injuries, shock, left-sided colon injury, and multiple comorbid conditions. Patients who are not suitable for anastomosis by 36 hours after damage control may be best managed with a diverting stoma. Failures are more likely related to ongoing instability, and the management strategy of colorectal injury should be based mainly on the patient's overall condition.

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.

Complex Perineal Trauma with Anorectal Avulsion

Introduction. The objective of this case report is to illustrate a severe perineal impalement injury, associated with anorectal avulsion and hemorrhagic shock. Results. A 32-year-old male patient was referred to our hospital for an impalement perineal trauma, associated with complex pelvic fracture and massive perineal soft tissue destruction and anorectal avulsion. On arrival, the systolic blood pressure was 85 mm Hg and the hemoglobin was 7.1 g/dL. The patient was transported to the operating room, and perineal lavage, hemostasis, and repacking were performed. After 12 hours in the Intensive Care Unit, the abdominal ultrasonography revealed free peritoneal fluid. We decided emergency laparotomy, and massive hemoperitoneum due to intraperitoneal rupture of pelvic hematoma was confirmed. Pelvic packing controlled the ongoing diffuse bleeding. After 48 hours, the relaparotomy with packs removal and loop sigmoid colostomy was performed. The postoperative course was progressive favorable, with discharge after 70 days and colostomy closure after four months, with no long-term complications. Conclusions. Severe perineal injuries are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Their management in high volume centers, with experience in colorectal and trauma surgery, allocating significant human and material resources, decreases the early mortality and long-term complications, offering the best quality of life for patients.

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.

Factors affecting morbidity and mortality in traumatic colorectal injuries and reliability and validity of trauma scoring systems

Background and aim

This study aims to determine the factors that affect morbidity and mortality in colon and rectum injuries related with trauma, the use of trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality and morbidity.

Patients and methods

Besides patient demographic characteristics, the mechanism of injury, the time between injury and surgery, accompanying body injuries, admittance Glasgow coma scale (GCS), findings at surgery and treatment methods were also recorded. With the obtained data, the abbreviated injury scale (AIS), injury severity score (ISS), revised trauma score (RTS) and trauma-ISS (TRISS) scores of each patient were calculated by using the 2008 revised AIS.

Results

Of the patients, 172 (88.7 %) were male, 22 (11.3 %) were female and the mean age was 29.15 ± 12.392 (15–89) years. The morbidity of our patients were 32 % and mortality were 12.4 %. ISS (p < 0.001), RTS (p < 0.001), and the TRISS (p < 0.001) on mortality were found to be significant. TRISS (p = 0.008), the ISS (p < 0.001), the RTS (p = 0.03), the trauma surgery interval (TSI, p < 0.001) were observed to have significant effects on morbidity.

Regression analysis showed that the ISS (OR 1.1; CI 95 % 1.01–1.2; p = 0.02), the RTS (OR 0.37; CI 95 % 0.21–0.67; p = 0.001) had significant effects on mortality. While the effects of TSI (OR 5.3; CI 95 % 1.5–18.8; p = 0.01) on morbidity were found to be significant.

Conclusion

Predicting mortality by using scoring systems and close postoperative follow up of patients in the risk group may ensure decreases in the rates of morbidity and mortality.

Immediate Versus Delayed Repair of Destructive Bowel Injuries in Patients with an Open Abdomen

Trauma surgeons frequently encounter destructive bowel injuries. The timing of the repair of the bowel injury should be performed in patients with planned open abdomen management and second-look laparotomy has not been specifically addressed. Our primary objective was to determine if there was a significant difference in the incidence of major complications between immediate and delayed repair among patients with traumatic bowel injuries and planned open abdomens. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with traumatic bowel injuries treated between 2001 and 2011 and who underwent laparotomy and were left with an open abdomen with a planned second operation. Pediatric patients (age less than 15 years) and patients who died in the first 24 hours of admission were excluded. The primary exposure of interest was dichotomously defined based on either definitive repair of the bowel injury during the initial trauma operation (immediate) or definitive repair during a subsequent surgery (delayed). Major complications were defined as enterocutaneous fistula, dehiscence, and abscess. Ninety-two patients met study eligibility. Of these, 50 (54%) underwent immediate bowel repair. Univariate analysis suggested no significant differences in the proportion of major complications between the two groups. After adjusting for Injury Severity Score, penetrating injury, initial base deficit, and presence of colon injury, there was no statistical difference in incidence of major complications between the two groups. Patients undergoing immediate versus delayed repair of traumatic bowel injuries and who are left with an open abdomen have comparable outcomes in terms of major complications.

Not all intestinal traumatic injuries are the same: a comparison of surgically treated blunt vs. penetrating injuries

PURPOSE

Traumatic intestinal injuries are less common with blunt compared to penetrating mechanisms of trauma and blunt injuries are often associated with diagnostic delays. The purpose of this study is to evaluate differences in the characteristics and outcomes between blunt and penetrating intestinal injuries to facilitate insight into optimal recognition and management.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of trauma admissions from January 2009 to June 2011 was performed. Patient demographics, ISS, early shock, injury type, timing to OR, blood loss and transfusions, surgical management, infections, EC fistulas, enteric leaks, LOS and mortality were compared.

RESULTS

Demographics - There was 3866 blunt admissions and 966 penetrating admissions to our level II trauma centre (Total n=4832) during this interval. The final study group comprised n=131 patients treated for intestinal injuries. Blunt n=54 (BI) vs. penetrating (PI) n=77. Age was similar between the groups: (BI 34 SD 12 vs. PI 30 SD 12). Comorbid conditions were similar as were ED hypotension and blood transfusions. Blunt mechanisms had higher ISS; BI (20 SD 14) vs. PI (16 SD 12), p=0.08 and organ specific injury scales were higher in blunt injuries. Operative Management - Time to operation was higher in BI: (500 SD 676min vs. PI 110 SD 153min, p=0.01). The use of an open abdomen technique was higher for BI: n=19 (35%) vs. PI: n=5 (6%), p=<0.001, as well as delayed intestinal repair in damage control cases. Outcomes - Anastomotic leaks were more prevalent in BI: n=4 (7%) vs. PI: n=2 (3%), p=0.38. Enteric fistulas were: (BI n=8 (15%), vs. PI n=2 (3%), p=0.02). Surgical site infections and other nosocomial infections were: (BI n=11 (20%) vs. PI n=4 (5%), p=0.02), (BI n=11 (20%) vs. PI n=2 (3%), p=0.002), respectively. Hospital and ICU LOS was: (BI=20 SD 14 vs. PI=11 SD 11, p=0.001), (BI=10 SD 10 vs. PI=5 SD 5, p=0.01) respectively. These differences were reflected in higher hospital charges in BI.

CONCLUSIONS

Blunt and penetrating intestinal injury patterns have high injury severity. Significant operative delays occurred in the blunt injury group as well as, anastomotic failures, enteric fistulas, nosocomial infections, and higher cost. These features underscore the complexity of blunt injury patterns and warrant vigilant injury recognition to improve outcomes.

Outcomes after colon trauma in the 21st century: an analysis of the U.S. National Trauma Data Bank

INTRODUCTION

Most colon trauma data arise from institutional series that provide descriptive analysis. We investigated the outcome of these patients by analyzing a nationwide database.

METHODS

We queried the U.S. National Trauma Data Bank (2007-2009) using primary International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification codes to identify colon injuries. Outcomes were stratified by injury mechanism (blunt versus penetrating), segment of colon injured, and management strategy (diversion versus in continuity).

RESULTS

There were 6,817 patients who suffered primary colon injuries; 82% were male and 48% experienced blunt injuries. Blunt colon trauma patients were older, had lengthier intensive care stays, and greater rates of morbidity and mortality than those with penetrating injuries (all P < .05). Nonspecified injuries were the most common (36%), followed by transverse colon injuries (24%). The overall fecal diversion rate was 9%, with the highest rates seen in patients with sigmoid colon injuries (15%). Diverted patients were older, had higher injury severity scores, and increased mortality (22% vs 12%; P < .001). Multivariate analysis found that neither mechanism nor fecal diversion were independently associated with increased morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSION

Sigmoid colon injuries seem to be managed with fecal diversion more often than other segmental injuries. Neither blunt mechanism nor fecal diversion were independently associated with adverse outcomes in colon trauma.

Impact of location on outcome after penetrating colon injuries

BACKGROUND

Most studies examining suture line failure after penetrating colon injuries have focused on right- versus left-sided injuries. In our institution, operative decisions (resection plus anastomosis vs. diversion) are based on a defined management algorithm regardless of injury location. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of injury location on outcomes after penetrating colon injuries.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with full thickness penetrating colon injuries for 13 years were stratified by age, injury location and mechanism, and severity of shock. According to the algorithm, patients with nondestructive injuries underwent primary repair. Destructive wounds underwent resection plus anastomosis in the absence of comorbidities or large preoperative or intraoperative transfusion requirements (>6 U of packed red blood cells); otherwise, they were diverted. Injury location was defined as ascending, transverse, descending (including splenic flexure), and sigmoid. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine whether injury location was an independent predictor of either morbidity or mortality.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixty-nine patients were identified: 314 (67%) underwent primary repair and 155 (33%) underwent resection. Most injuries involved the transverse colon (39%), followed by the ascending colon (26%), the descending colon (21%), and the sigmoid colon (14%). Overall, there were 13 suture line failures (3%) and 72 abscesses (15%). Most suture line failures involved injuries to the descending colon (p = 0.06), whereas most abscesses followed injuries to the ascending colon (p = 0.37). Multivariable logistic regression failed to identify injury location as an independent predictor of either morbidity or mortality after adjusting for 24-hour transfusions, base excess, shock index, injury mechanism, and operative management.

CONCLUSION

Injury location did not affect morbidity or mortality after penetrating colon injuries. Nondestructive injuries should be primarily repaired. For destructive injuries, operative decisions based on a defined algorithm rather than injury location achieves an acceptably low morbidity and mortality rate and simplifies management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, level III.

Historical and current trends in colon trauma

The authors discuss the evolution of the evaluation and management of colonic trauma, as well as the debate regarding primary repair versus fecal diversion. Their evidence-based review covers diagnosis, management, surgical approaches, and perioperative care of patients with colon-related trauma. The management of traumatic colon injuries has evolved significantly over the past 50 years; here the authors describe a practical approach to the treatment and management of traumatic injuries to the colon based on the most current research. However, management of traumatic colon injuries remains a challenge and continues to be associated with significant morbidity. Familiarity with the different methods to the approach and management of colonic injuries will allow surgeons to minimize unnecessary complications and mortality.

[Morbidity and mortality associated to loop colostomy and ileostomy closure]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the morbidity and mortality of operations for closure of loop colostomies and ileostomies.

METHODS

We analyzed epidemiological data, postoperative complications, morbidity and mortality of patients who underwent operations for closure of loop colostomies and ileostomies. We excluded patients whose data could not be obtained from the files and operations that required laparotomy for closure.

RESULTS

88 patients were operated on, five being excluded. We evaluated the data of 83 patients, 56 patients with colostomies (group C) and 27 with ileostomies (group I). Males predominated in both groups (C = 71.9% and I = 57.7%). In group C the most common indication for making the stoma was abdominal trauma (43.9%) and in group I it was protecting a colorectal anastomosis (57.6%). The rate of anastomotic dehiscence in group C was 3.5% and in group I 19.2%. Morbidity was higher in group I than in group C (30.7% vs. 12.2%). There was one death in group I.

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that morbidity associated with stoma closure is high, being higher in patients with loop ileostomy.

Traumatic injury to the colon and rectum in Scotland: demographics and outcome

AIM

An analysis of a multi-centred database of trauma patients was performed.

METHOD

The study used data from a prospective multi-centre trauma database containing details of 52 887 trauma patients admitted to participating Scottish Hospitals over an 11-year period.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty (0.64%) of 52 887 trauma patients (284 male) with colorectal injuries were identified; 43.9% of colorectal injuries occurred following blunt trauma and 56.1% following penetrating injury. Patients in the latter group were younger, had less haemodynamic compromise and were less likely to die than those with blunt trauma (P < 0.01). The overall mortality rate was 25.6% and after rectal injury it was 21.2% (P > 0.05). Female gender, increased age, road traffic accidents and those admitted as a result of a blunt traumatic injury were associated with increased mortality. Age > 65 years (P = 0.01), increasing injury severity score (ISS) at presentation (P < 0.001), haemodynamic compromise (P = 0.045) and decreased Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) (P < 0.001) had the strongest independent associations with mortality.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal injury after trauma has a high morbidity. Clinical features associated with death allow stratification of mortality risk.

Comparing the results penetrating colon injuries based on intervention by surgeons with different levels of experience in West Indies

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have established the safety of primary repair for civilian penetrating colonic injuries with little data exploring the experience of surgeon performing the procedure. Owing to financial, staff and administrative constraints in the developing world, surgeons-in-training sometimes find themselves faced with having to perform major surgery for penetrating colonic injuries with no experienced surgeon in attendance, but available for advice via phone. With this thought, we collected retrospective data to analyse our outcomes based on this practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over a 10-year period 62 patients with penetrating colonic trauma underwent laparotomies with analysis done on 53 cases. Severity of injury, grade of operating surgical staff and outcome were noted. Outcomes of "inexperienced surgeons" and "experienced surgeons" were compared to determine if a difference exists in outcome based on experience or grade of surgeon.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients with penetrating colon injures underwent primary repair and/or anastomosis with 18 (34%) performed by "inexperienced surgeons" and 35 (66%) by "experienced surgeons". There was one death unrelated to colon trauma with an inexperienced surgeon and one anastomotic leak in a patient operated on by an experienced surgeon.

CONCLUSION

This data supports previous reports on the safety of primary repair for penetrating colonic injuries and raises the point that in cases of lower severity of injury inexperienced surgeons have similar results to experienced surgeons with regard to primary repair.

Traumatic injury of the colon and rectum: the evidence vs dogma

BACKGROUND

The treatment of traumatic injuries to the colon and rectum is often driven by dogma, despite the presence of evidence suggesting alternative methods of care.

OBJECTIVE

This is an evidence-based review, in the format of a review article, to determine the ideal treatment of noniatrogenic traumatic injuries to the colon and rectum to improve the care provided to this group of patients. Recommendations and treatment algorithms were based on consensus conclusions of the data.

DATA SOURCES

A search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Collected Reviews was performed from 1965 through December 2010.

STUDY SELECTION

Authors independently reviewed selected abstracts to determine their scientific merit and relevance based on key-word combinations regarding colorectal trauma. A directed search of the embedded references from the primary articles was also performed in select circumstances. We then performed a complete evaluation of 108 articles and 3 additional abstracts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were morbidity, mortality, and colostomy rates.

RESULTS

Evidence-based recommendations and algorithms are presented for the management of traumatic colorectal injuries.

LIMITATIONS

Level I and II evidence was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal injuries remain a challenging clinical entity associated with significant morbidity. Familiarity with the different methods to approach and manage these injuries, including "damage control" tactics when necessary, will allow surgeons to minimize unnecessary complications and mortality.

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

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

Effect of the combination of fibrin glue and growth hormone on intestinal anastomoses in a pig model of traumatic shock associated with peritonitis

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal sepsis and hemorrhagic shock have been found to impair the healing of intestinal anastomoses. The present study examined whether fibrin glue (FG) and recombinant human growth hormone (GH) can improve intestinal primary anastomotic healing in a pig model of traumatic shock associated with peritonitis. Further, the study was designed to investigate the probable mechanism of these agents.

METHODS

Female anesthetized pigs were divided into five groups. Group sham (n = 7), pigs without traumatic shock had small bowel resection anastomoses; group control (n = 14), pigs had bowel resection anastomoses 24 h after abdominal gunshot plus exsanguination/resuscitation; group FG (n = 14); group GH (n = 14); group FG/GH (n = 14), pigs received FG, recombinant GH, or both, respectively. Recombinant GH was given daily for 7 days. Blood samples were collected daily for measurement of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha levels. Investigations also included adhesion formation, anastomotic bursting pressure, tensile strength, hydroxyproline (HP) content, myeloperoxidase (MPO), tumor necrosis factor (NF)-kappaB activity, and histology analysis 10 days later. A second experiment (n = 20 subjects assigned to each of the five groups) was designed to study survival during the first 20 postoperative days.

RESULTS

Traumatic shock associated with peritonitis led to significant decreases in intestinal anastomotic bursting pressures, tensile strengths, and tissue hydroxyproline content, along with severe adhesion formation, increases in MPO activity and NF-kappaB activity, and plasma levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Both FG and recombinant GH treatment led to early significant increases in plasma levels of TNF-alpha and IL-6. At the same time, FG alone, unlike recombinant GH alone, led to significant increases in anastomotic bursting pressures, tensile strength, and tissue HP content, along with decreases in anastomotic MPO and NF-kappaB activity and later plasma levels of TNF-a and IL-6. The FG group also developed more marked neoangiogenesis and collagen deposition on histology analysis. However, FG and recombinant GH synergistically effected improved anastomotic healing, abolishing the infaust effects promoted by recombinant GH. Adhesion formation after intestinal anastomosis could not be lowered by FG alone or by the combination of FG and recombinant GH. Both FG alone and FG/GH, in contrast to GH alone and control treatment, significantly prolonged the survival time of experimental animals.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that FG, but not recombinant GH, could lower the risk of anastomotic leakage, improve intestinal anastomotic healing, and prolong survival in a pig model of traumatic shock associated with peritonitis. Both FG and recombinant GH synergistically effected improved intestinal anastomotic healing. It was suggested that GH could be used locally to promote intestinal anastomotic healing in intra-abdominal peritonitis.

Current management of large bowel injuries and factors influencing outcome

BACKGROUND

Colonic and intra-peritoneal rectal injuries may be managed by primary repair and extra-peritoneal rectal injuries by diverting colostomy. This study was undertaken to document our experience with this approach and to identify factors which might impact on outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective study of all patients treated for colon and rectal injuries in one surgical ward at King Edward VIII hospital, Durban, over a 7-year period (1998-2004). Demographic data, clinical presentation, findings at laparotomy and outcome were documented.

RESULTS

Of 488 patients undergoing laparotomy, 177 (36%) had injuries to the colon and rectum with age 29.8+/-10.9 years. Injury mechanisms were firearms (118) stabs (54) and blunt trauma (5). Delay before laparotomy was 10+/-9.3 h. Complication and mortality rates were 36% and 17%, respectively. 68 patients (38%) required ICU management. Shock on admission and increased transfusion requirements were associated with a significantly increased mortality. Patients with delay < or = 12 h before laparotomy had a higher mortality rate than those with delay >12 h. The mortality rate increased with the number of associated injuries and it was higher the higher the Injury Severity Score (ISS); it was similar for stabs, firearms and blunt trauma. Hospital stay was 9.5+/-9.2 days.

CONCLUSION

We reaffirm that primary repair is appropriate for colonic and intra-peritoneal rectal injuries and that extra-peritoneal rectal injuries require diverting colostomy. Shock on admission, increased blood transfusion requirements, associated organ injury and severity of the injury were associated with high mortality.

Arteriocolic fistulae due to a stab wound: a rare cause of lethal lower gastrointestinal bleeding

The authors describe the first reported case of lethal lower gastrointestinal bleeding due to an iliocolic fistulae following a single stab wound. They also discuss the pathophysiology of the enterovacscular fistulae, as well as a review of the literature and assess forensic characteristics. This unusual case underlines the importance of being aware of the victim's history in arteriocolic fistulae due to a stab wound.

Colon and rectal injuries during Operation Iraqi Freedom: are there any changing trends in management or outcome?

PURPOSE

Despite the evolution in the management of traumatic colorectal injuries in both civilian and military settings during the previous few decades, they continue to be a source of significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to analyze management and clinical outcomes from a cohort of patients suffering colorectal injuries.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from all patients injured and treated at the 31st Combat Support Hospital during Operation Iraqi Freedom from September 2003 to December 2004.

RESULTS

From the 3,442 patients treated, 175 (5.1 percent) had colorectal injuries. Patients were predominately male (95 percent), suffered penetrating injuries (96 percent), and had a mean age of 29 (range, 4-70) years. Ninety-one percent of patients had associated injuries. Initial management included primary repair (34 percent), stoma (33 percent), resection with anastomosis (19 percent), and damage control only (14 percent). By injury location, stomas were placed more frequently with rectal or sphincter injuries 65 percent (25/40) vs. other sites (right, 19 percent (8/42); transverse, 25 percent (8/32); left, 36 percent (20/55); P < 0.01). Thirteen percent of patients eventually received stomas for failure of initial in-continuity management. Patients with colorectal injuries had a significantly increased mortality rate than those without (18 percent (31/175) vs. 8 percent (269/3267); P < 0.001) but not the subset without colorectal injuries undergoing celiotomy (18 vs.14.4 percent; P = 0.41). Rectal (odds radio, 22; P = 0.03) and transverse colon (odds radio, 17; P = 0.04) injuries were independently associated with increased mortality in multivariate regression analysis. Initial placement of stoma had an independent association with lower leak rates (odds radio, 0.06; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Injury to the rectum or transverse colon is an independent predictor of mortality. The use of a diverting stoma varied by injury site and was associated with a decreased leak rate but demonstrated no impact on the incidence of sepsis or mortality.

When Trauma Means a Stoma

Trauma is a leading cause of death and disability. When traumatic injuries require ostomy surgery, the wound, ostomy, and continence nurse acts as a crucial part of the trauma team. This literature review describes mechanisms of injury associated with creation of a stoma, key aspects of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing care in trauma populations and presents suggestions for future research.

Das Abdominaltrauma

Blunt abdominal trauma is much more frequent than penetrating abdominal trauma in Europe. As a consequence of improved quality of computed tomography, even complex liver injuries are increasingly being treated conservatively. However, missed hollow viscus injuries still remain a problem, as they considerably increase mortality in multiply injured patients. Laparoscopy decreases the rate of unnecessary laparotomies in perforating abdominal trauma and helps to diagnose injuries of solid organs and the diaphragm. However, the sensitivity in detecting hollow viscus injuries is low and the role of laparoscopy in blunt abdominal injury has not been defined. If intra-abdominal bleeding is difficult to control in hemodynamically unstable patients, damage control surgery with packing of the liver, total splenectomy, and provisional closure of hollow viscus injuries is of importance. Definitive surgical treatment follows hemodynamic stabilization and restoration of hemostasis. Injuries of the duodenum and pancreas after blunt abdominal trauma are often associated with other intra-abdominal injuries and the treatment depends on their location and severity.