No Evidence Supporting the Routine Use of Digital Rectal Examinations in Trauma Patients

Hydrogen peroxide irrigation as an adjunct to digital rectal examination for detection of penetrating low rectal injuries

Background

Rectal trauma carries significant morbidity, particularly if there is a delay in diagnosis. Digital rectal examination has a relatively low sensitivity. Proctoscopy and sigmoidoscopy are available but can be limited in situations with increased fecal burden or uncooperative patients. We suggest more sensitive bedside techniques are necessary to diagnose low rectal injury, and here present a case report to demonstrate proof of concept using hydrogen peroxide to directly visualize an injury.

Methods

Digital rectal examination was performed in a patient after multiple gunshot wounds and was negative for gross blood. Suspicion for low rectal injury remained high, and hydrogen peroxide was used to evaluate bullet trajectory. Approximately 25 mL of 3% hydrogen peroxide was instilled into the bullet tract.

Results

Hydrogen peroxide evaluation of the bullet tract was performed in less than 1 min with minimal supplies and preparation. It revealed an extraperitoneal injury where the rectal examination had been falsely negative.

Conclusion

Hydrogen peroxide may be used to evaluate a suspected penetrating injury of the rectum. Considering the potential of this modality to diagnose injuries in a timely and reliable manner, additional investigation may be warranted.

The benefits and clinical application of the digital rectal exam in trauma populations: Towards enhancing patient safety and quality outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Current literature contains an extensive number of analyses on the diagnostic value and utilization of the direct rectal exam in trauma patients. Presently, ATLS recommends the application of the digital rectal exam in trauma patients following a primary assessment of traumatic injuries. We aim to assess the validity and diagnostic value of the digital rectal exam in trauma populations.

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, ProQuest, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies from the date of database conception to August 6th, 2022. Studies that assessed the validity of the digital rectal exam performed in the emergency department or trauma bay, in both adult and pediatric trauma patients were included. Study outcomes and measurements of validity were summarized and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies met inclusion criteria for both adult and pediatric trauma populations. The sensitivity of the digital rectal exam in detecting both spinal cord and urethral injuries in adult trauma populations ranged from 0 to 50%, while the sensitivity in detecting gastrointestinal injuries ranged from 0% to 51%. When compared to other clinical indicators, the digital rectal exam was consistently worse at detecting injuries. Within the pediatric trauma populations, the digital rectal exam resulted in high false negative rates ranging from 66% to 100%, failing to detect all urethral and gastrointestinal injuries and pelvic fractures.

CONCLUSION

The use of digital rectal exams in trauma patients illustrates limited to no validity and reliability in assessing pertinent injuries and does not influence the management of injuries. Trauma societies should consider creating guidelines and algorithms to clarify the use of digital rectal exams in specific situations and injury types.

Conservative management of a traumatic non-destructive grade II extraperitoneal rectal injury following motor vehicle collision

Rectal injuries are rare sequelae of blunt force abdominal trauma and are notorious for delayed recognition with resulting high morbidity and mortality. The management of traumatic colorectal injury is mired in old dogma and until recently mandated faecal diversion. Here we present a case of extraperitoneal rectal perforation successfully managed conservatively following blunt trauma.

Colon Trauma: Evidence-Based Practices

Colon injury is not uncommon and occurs in about a half of patients with penetrating hollow viscus injuries. Despite major advances in the operative management of penetrating colon wounds, there remains discussion regarding the appropriate treatment of destructive colon injuries, with a significant amount of scientific evidence supporting segmental resection with primary anastomosis in most patients without comorbidities or large transfusion requirement. Although literature is sparse concerning the management of blunt colon injuries, some studies have shown operative decision based on an algorithm originally defined for penetrating wounds should be considered in blunt colon injuries. The optimal management of colonic injuries in patients requiring damage control surgery (DCS) also remains controversial. Studies have recently reported that there is no increased risk compared with patients treated without DCS if fascial closure is completed on the first reoperation, or that a management algorithm for penetrating colon wounds is probably efficacious for colon injuries in the setting of DCS as well.