Contemporary management of rectal injuries at Level I trauma centers: The results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study

Analysis of outcomes of penetrating colonic injuries managed with or without fecal diversion

Traumatic colorectal injuries can be managed by either fecal diversion or primary repair / resection and anastomosis. We aimed to study differences in outcomes in adult patients managed with or without fecal diversion at time of initial operation. The National Trauma Databank (NTDB) was used to identify adult patients (ages 18-64 years) with penetrating colonic injuries for the years 2013-2015. We included patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9-24 excluding patients with concomitant extra-abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or more. Subjects arriving without signs of life, expiring in ER or with missing data were excluded. Data was collected for age, gender, vital signs on presentation, discharge disposition and length of stay (LOS). Patients were divided into two groups based on whether or not fecal diversion was performed within 1 day of presentation. Primary outcome assessed was in-hospital mortality and unplanned return to OR. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), pneumonia, organ surgical site infection (SSI), deep SSI, severe sepsis and unplanned intubation. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS for windows. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of 2,598,467 patients, 5344 (0.21%) sustained a penetrating colonic injury. 2339 (43.8%) patients met criteria for age, ISS, AIS, signs of life and ED outcome. 173 patients underwent fecal diversion within 24 h of presentation (Group 1) while 708 did not (Group 2). Patients with missing data were excluded leaving 162 patients in Group 1 and 657 patients in Group 2. Groups 1 and 2 were noted to be similar in terms of ISS (median of 10 in both), age (median of 31 vs 29 years), percentage of male patients (85.2% vs 87.8%; p = 0.44), mean systolic blood pressure (127 mmHg vs 126 mmHg; p = 0.54), mean pulse rate (95.4 vs 94.5; p = 0.60) and mean respiratory rate (20.4 vs 20.1; p = 0.56) respectively. Median LOS was 10 days in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between groups 1 and 2 in the primary outcomes of in-hospital mortality (2.4% vs 3.5%; OR: 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-4.20) or unplanned return to OR (4.3% vs 7.8%; OR: 1.86; 95% CI: 0.83-4.19). No statistically significant differences were noted between groups 1 and 2 in the secondary outcomes of AKI (3.7% vs 3.8%; OR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.41-2.55), ARDS (1.2% VS 1.7%; OR: 1.36; 95% CI 0.30-6.21), DVT (1.9% vs 4.0%; OR: 2.18; 95% CI 0.65-7.31), PE (1.9% vs 2.0%; OR: 1.07; 95% CI 0.30-3.80), pneumonia (4.9% vs 5.3%; OR: 1.08; 95% CI 0.49-2.38), organ SSI (3.7% vs 7.0%; OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 0.82-4.67), deep SSI (3.7% vs 4.4%; OR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.49-2.94), severe sepsis (3.7% vs 3.3%; OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.36-2.26) or unplanned intubation (1.9% vs 1.7%; OR: 0.90; 95% CI 0.25-3.27). Adult patients with penetrating colonic injuries with ISS 9-24 in the absence of serious extra-abdominal injury who undergo surgery within 24 h of presentation do not seem to derive a statistically significant benefit from fecal diversion in terms of post-operative complications and mortality. In more severely injured patients fecal diversion may continue to provide a benefit.

Evaluation and Management of Traumatic Rectal Injury

Traumatic injury to the rectum is rare but associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, diagnostic and treatment recommendations for these complex injuries have changed. While rare, it is critical for general surgeons to understand the basic principles of injury assessment, damage control, and definitive management of traumatic rectal injuries. This article reviews the literature regarding the evaluation and management of traumatic rectal injuries.

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.

Colon Injuries and Infectious Complications in Concurrent Gunshot-Related Fractures

INTRODUCTION

Concurrent colonic injury among patients with gunshot-related fractures presents a potential risk for infectious complications. We hypothesized that colon injuries are associated with more infectious orthopedic complications among gunshot victims with concurrent fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed trauma patients arriving at our level 1 trauma center from January 1, 2019 to May 31, 2022 who suffered any gunshot-related fracture and also underwent an exploratory laparotomy. Of these patients, those with colon injuries were compared to those without colon injuries. Baseline characteristics, including antibiotic regimens, were collected in addition to outcomes of length of stay, intensive care unit admission, ventilator requirement, and development of infectious orthopedic complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 56 of the 107 included patients had colon injuries. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, and Injury Severity Score were similar between groups. Of patients with colonic injuries, 16.1% received early, repeat dosing of broad-spectrum antibiotics, while only 3.9% of patients without colonic injuries received this antibiotic dosing (P = 0.04). Interestingly, only patients with colon injuries developed infectious orthopedic complications and none of the patients without colon injuries developed such complications (10.7% versus 0.0%, P = 0.03). All patients with orthopedic infections had infected pelvic fractures. Length of stay was 3 d longer in the colon injury group (P = 0.04). There was no difference in intensive care unit admission, ventilator requirement, or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent colon injuries among patients with gunshot-related fractures are associated with higher risk of infectious orthopedic complications, likely from direct spread of fecal contaminant. Early, broad-spectrum antibiotics may be associated with reduced infectious orthopedic complications.

Faecal diversion remains central in the contemporary management of rectal trauma-Experience from a major trauma centre in South Africa

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides an overview of a single centre's experience with rectal injury over a decade. It hopes to use this data to provide context to our current approach to managing these injuries in the civilian setting.

THE STUDY

All patients with rectal trauma were identified from the Hybrid Electronic Medical Registry (HEMR).

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 88 patients with rectal injuries were admitted to Grey's Hospital in Pietermaritzburg. There were 80 (91 %) males and 8 (9 %) females. The median age was 31 (15-63) years. There were 9 (10 %) blunt mechanisms, 76 (86 %) penetrating mechanisms and 3 (4 %) combined blunt and penetrating mechanisms. Gunshot wounds accounted for the majority of sustained rectal trauma (71 %). There were 57 (65 %) extra-peritoneal injuries, 24 (27 %) intraperitoneal injuries and 7 (8 %) combined injuries. The grade of injury, according to the AAST grading system, was as follows, AAST 1: 16 (18 %), AAST 2: 63 (72 %), AAST 3: 7 (8 %), and AAST 4: 2 (2 %). Pre-sacral drainage and distal rectal washout were not performed. Almost all (55/57) of the extra-peritoneal rectal injuries were managed with proximal diversion (PD). There were five primary repairs (PR) performed in the extra-peritoneal rectal injury cohort. In four of these cases, this was accompanied by a PD. Of the 24 intraperitoneal rectal injuries, 15 underwent PR, of which 11 were performed in conjunction with PD. In total, 20 intraperitoneal rectal injuries underwent PD. All seven combined rectal injuries underwent PD, and three of the combined rectal injuries underwent PR with PD. There was urogenital tract associated morbidity in 8 %, gastrointestinal tract related morbidity in 8 % and septic complications in 11 %.

CONCLUSION

Rectal trauma is still associated with a high rate of rectal/urogenital and infection related morbidity. Although pre-sacral drainage and distal stump washout have been largely abandoned in civilian practice, faecal diversion currently remains the cornerstone of the management of rectal trauma in our environment. Although there was a low rate of intra-abdominal septic complications in patients who had undergone diversion, this needs to be balanced against the low rate of stoma reversal.

Rectal necrosis in the setting of critical illness and burn

The rectum is an anatomically protected and well vascularized structure. Injury to the rectum is usually the result of penetrating perineal mechanisms or reported scalding enemas. Here, we report a case of isolated rectal necrosis following a 72 % total body surface area burn that resulted from a motor vehicle crash. The patient's rectal injury was managed with open resection, left in discontinuity and ultimately expired. In presenting this case, we hope to share an unusual development in a patient with critical illness and guide future care.

A retrospective analysis of transanal surgical management of 291 cases with rectal foreign bodies

BACKGROUND

Rectal foreign bodies (RFB) are quite uncommon except in very busy hospitals. Because of their rarity, it is seldom that the treating physicians have a standard approach to the diagnosis, technique of extraction, and post-extraction evaluation. This can be further complicated by the rather extreme variability of size, shape, and texture of the foreign bodies, as well as the potential extent of trauma to the rectum or distal colon.

AIM

The objectives of this study were to delineate the demographics, classification of cause, and injury patterns of RFB and to present the results of the transanal surgical management of a large series of RFB.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected extensive data from the hospital medical records of the 291 patients who presented with RFB to the emergency department of Shenyang Proctological Hospital (Shenyang, China) from 2012 July to 2020 December. Specifically, demographics, origins and circumstance of the RFB, complications, injuries, anesthesia method, and the results of the transanal surgical management were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 291 RFB cases, 225 (77.3%) were male and 66 (22.7%) were female, with a mean age of 53.8 ± 15.5 years (range, 1 ~ 88 years). The circumstances of the RFB were categorized as swallowed, 199 cases (68.4%); self-inserted, 87 (29.9%); and iatrogenic, 5 (1.7%). The proportion of males in the self-inserted RFB group was significantly greater than the swallowed RFB group (t = 31.114, p = 0.000). In the swallowed RFB group, the most common anorectal injuries and pathological changes were the following: penetration into the mucosa (75 cases, 37.7%), perianal or submucosal abscess (27 cases, 13.6%), and penetration into the anal canal (18 cases, 9.0%). In the self-inserted RFB group, 64 (73.6%) of the 87 cases had an intact rectum, whereas 8 (9.2%) had rectal mucosal ulcers and bleeding, and 7 (8%) had rectal lacerations. In the iatrogenic RFB group, 3 cases (60%) had rectal mucosal ulcers and bleeding, and 2 cases (40%) had inflammation of the rectal mucosa. Regarding extraction procedures, in the swallowed group, 187(187/199; 94%) patients underwent a transanal surgical procedure, and all were successful. In the self-inserted group, 82 patients underwent the transanal surgical procedure, and 74 (74/82; 90.2%) were successful whereas it was unsuccessful in the remaining 8 patients (8/82, 9.8%). Three (3/4, 75%) patients with iatrogenic RFB were resolved by the transanal surgical procedure.

CONCLUSION

Men were markedly more likely than women to have swallowed RFBs and self-inserted RFBs. No serious damage to the rectum and anus was found in cases of swallowed RFB. Moreover, most surgical operations to remove foreign bodies via the anus were successful in this category of RFB. In contrast, rectal injury was more severe in patients with self-inserted RFB, such as rectal laceration, rectal mucosal ulcer, and bleeding. Moreover, the transanal removal operation in patients with self-inserted RFB had a failure rate of nearly 10%. Thick, long, hard foreign bodies did present a great challenge to the operator. Therefore, if necessary, patients with foreign bodies may need to be promptly referred for transabdominal removal.

Management of a traumatic anorectal full-thickness laceration: a case report

The rectum is the least frequently injured organ in trauma, with an incidence of about 1% to 3% in trauma cases involving civilians. Most rectal injuries are caused by gunshot wounds, blunt force trauma, and stab wounds. A 46-year-old male patient was crushed between two vehicles while he was working. He was hemodynamically unstable, and the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma showed hemoperitoneum and hemoretroperitoneum; therefore, damage control surgery with pelvic packing was performed. A subsequent whole-body computed tomography scan showed a displaced pelvic bone and sacrum fracture. There was evidence of an anorectal full-thickness laceration and urethral laceration. In second-look surgery performed 48 hours later, the pelvis was stabilized with external fixators, and it was decided to proceed with loop sigmoid colostomy. A tractioned rectal probe with an internal balloon was positioned in order to approach the flaps of the rectal wall laceration. On postoperative day 13, a radiological examination with endoluminal contrast injected from the stoma after removal of the balloon was performed and showed no evidence of extraluminal leak. Rectosigmoidoscopy, rectal manometry, anal sphincter electromyography, and trans-stomic transit examinations showed normal findings, indicating that it was appropriate to proceed with the closure of the colostomy. The postoperative course was uneventful. The optimal management for extraperitoneal penetrating rectal injuries continues to evolve. Primary repair with fecal diversion is the mainstay of treatment, and a conservative approach to rectal lacerations with an internal balloon in a rectal probe could provide a possibility for healing with a lower risk of complications.

Trauma de recto penetrante: revisión de tema

Introducción. En la actualidad, el trauma de recto continúa siendo una situación clínica compleja y temida por ser potencialmente mortal. Su detección y manejo temprano es la piedra angular para impactar tanto en la mortalidad como en la morbilidad de los pacientes. Hoy en día, aun existe debate sobre la aproximación quirúrgica ideal en el trauma de recto y las decisiones de manejo intraoperatorias se ven enormemente afectadas por la experiencia y preferencias del cirujano. Métodos. Se realizó una búsqueda de la literatura en las bases de datos de PubMed, Clinical Key, Google Scholar y SciELO utilizando las palabras claves descritas y se seleccionaron los artículos mas relevantes publicados en los últimos 20 años; se tuvieron en cuenta los artículos escritos en ingles y español. Discusión. El recto es el órgano menos frecuentemente lesionado en trauma, sin embargo, las implicaciones clínicas que conlleva pasar por alto este tipo de lesiones pueden ser devastadoras para el paciente. Las opciones para el diagnóstico incluyen el tacto rectal, la tomografía computarizada y la rectosigmoidoscopia. El manejo quirúrgico va a depender de la localización, el grado de la lesión y las lesiones asociadas. Conclusión. El conocimiento de la anatomía, el mecanismo de trauma y las lesiones asociadas permitirán al cirujano realizar una aproximación clínico-quirúrgica adecuada que lleve a desenlaces clínicos óptimos de los pacientes que se presentan con trauma de recto.

Rectal avulsion associated with complex open pelvic fracture following rollover injury

Background

We present a rare case of complete rectal avulsion from the external anal sphincter complex associated with unstable pelvic ring disruption, including spinopelvic dissociation, following rollover by tractor.

Purpose

In the context of major pelvic trauma, evaluating for unstable bony, acute vascular, urethral and bladder injuries is essential. However, a detailed search for anorectal injury is also required by the reporting radiologist. Research Design: Case Study.

Study Sample:

1.

Data Collection and/or Analysis

Retrospective analysis of computed tomography (CT).

Results

In this case report we highlight specific pelvic floor anatomy on CT, with a focus on gross morphology and the presence of peri-rectal free gas as primary evidence for injury. Secondary radiological evidence which should trigger the search for anorectal injury includes bony posterior pelvic ring disruption (sacrum or coccyx fractures) or associated Morel-Lavallée lesions.

Conclusion

The presence of radiological abnormality should prompt direct clinical inspection for corroboration. Early recognition is crucial for joint colorectal and orthopaedic management and the avoidance of delayed pelvic sepsis, which may become intractable.

Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections of the Perineum

Necrotizing soft tissue infections of the perineum are rapidly progressing infections associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Prompt diagnosis and management with early surgical debridement is necessary to improve survival from this deadly disease. Repeat debridements are not uncommon. Important adjuncts to surgery include broad-spectrum antibiotics and management in an intensive care unit, as patients frequently develop multisystem organ failure. Once the acute phase is managed, fecal diversion with either an ostomy or fecal management catheter can be considered to decrease soiling of the wound and facilitate healing. Long-term management requires meticulous wound care, often with the assistance of negative pressure wound therapy. Patients may ultimately require skin grafts or tissue flaps for soft tissue coverage following extensive surgical debridements.

Successful Transabdominal Removal of Penetrating Iron Rod in the Rectum: A Case Report

Foreign bodies in the anus and rectum are not uncommon presentations globally. Reasons for foreign bodies in the rectum can be trauma, assault, psychiatric reasons but the most common reason documented is sexual pleasure, and objects range from sex toys to tools to packed drugs. Regardless of the reason, health care providers must maintain nonjudgmental composure and express empathy. Numerous cases have been reported of anorectal foreign body due to various causes. Removal of the objects has mostly been through rectally but some does need surgical intervention. A multidisciplinary approach and radiologic investigations are important to guide in the management outline. Establishment of guidelines for anorectal foreign bodies are needed to guide surgeons and emergency physicians on the course of treatment. We present a case of an eleven-year old school boy slid and fell on an iron rod that penetrated his rectum through his anal canal. Presented with clinical features of peritonitis, where emergency laparotomy was done and the iron rod was extracted abdominally with primary repair of the rectum. The boy recovered well and was discharged four days after with no complications.

Extraperitoneal rectal trauma in a patient with multiple gunshot wounds: A case report and literature review

Penetrating rectal trauma is an uncommon presentation, particularly in centres with low rates of trauma, and requires a high index of suspicion to identify and treat. Management of penetrating rectal trauma has evolved over several decades and previously included proximal diversion, distal rectal washout, and presacral drainage as the primary surgical maneuvers to reduce mortality. Recently, a more conservative approach has been adopted, as the applicability of combat experience to the civilian setting has been questioned. In this report, a case of extraperitoneal rectal injury in a patient with multiple gunshot wounds provides a backdrop for literature review and discussion of the modern diagnostic and management approaches to penetrating rectal trauma.

Penetrating gluteal injuries in North West London: a retrospective cohort study and initial management guideline

Background

Penetrating gluteal injuries (PGIs) are an increasingly common presentation to major trauma centers (MTCs) in the UK and especially in London. PGIs can be associated with mortality and significant morbidity. There is a paucity of consistent guidance on how best to investigate and manage these patients.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed by interrogating prospectively collected patient records for PGI presenting to a level 1 MTC in London between 2017 and 2019.

Results

There were 125 presentations with PGI, accounting for 6.86% of all penetrating injuries. Of these, 95.2% (119) were male, with a median age of 21 (IQR 18–29), and 20.80% (26) were under 18. Compared with the 3 years prior to this study, the number of PGI increased by 87%. The absolute risk (AR) of injury to a significant structure was 27.20%; the most frequently injured structure was a blood vessel (17.60%), followed by the rectum (4.80%) and the urethra (1.60%). The AR by anatomic quadrant of injury was highest in the lower inner quadrant (56%) and lowest in the upper outer quadrant (14%). CT scanning had an overall sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 92.38% in identifying rectal injury.

Discussion

The anatomic quadrant of injury can be helpful in stratifying risk of rectal and urethral injuries when assessing a patient in the emergency department. Given the low sensitivity in identifying rectal injury on initial CT, this data supports assesing any patients considered at high risk of rectal injury with an examination under general anesthetic with or without rigid sigmoidoscopy. The pathway has created a clear tool that optimizes investigation and treatment, minimizing the likelihood of missed injury or unnecessary use of resources. It therefore represents a potential pathway other centers receiving a similar trauma burden could consider adopting.

Level of evidence

2b.

Magnitude and outcomes of complex perineal injury - A retrospective analysis of five years' data from a Level 1 trauma centre

Complex perineal injuries pose a major diagnostic and therapeutic challenge to trauma surgeons. A retrospective review of the hospital records of 29 patients with complex perineal injury following blunt trauma was done. Demographic profile, management and outcomes were collected. Quality of life analysis was conducted for patients with complex perineal injuries who were discharged. The most predominant mode of injury was a road crash: being a pedestrian run over by a heavy motor vehicle. Pelvic fracture was seen in 20, anorectal involvement in 22 and urogenital injuries in 14. Urgent surgical debridement was done in all patients, faecal diversion in 27 and urinary diversion in 14. There were nine deaths, three from haemorrhage, and the remainder from sepsis and multi-organ dysfunction. Complex perineal injury remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in trauma patients. There is a need to ensure adequate rehabilitation services for such patients.

Traumatic Arterio-Enteric Fistula-A Report of 2 Cases With Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Traumatic arterio-enteric fistula is predominantly seen after penetrating trauma with only 21 reported cases documented in the past 25 years. They may present in an acute or delayed manner with upper or lower gastrointestinal bleed. A detailed clinical examination with requisite imaging can help in detecting such injuries.

CASE DESCRIPTION

Case 1: A 20-year-old gentleman, presented with penetrating stab injury to the gluteal region with bleeding per rectum. Imaging revealed evidence of injury to the inferior rectal artery which was found to be communicating with the extraperitoneal portion of the rectum. He was managed with a combination of endovascular and open surgery with a successful outcome. Case 2: A 29-year-old gentleman, presented in a delayed manner 2 weeks after a gunshot wound to the gluteal region, which was managed operatively in another hospital. He developed a massive lower gastrointestinal bleed 2 weeks after presentation. Imaging revealed evidence of a pseudoaneurysm of the inferior gluteal artery which had a fistulous communication with the gastrointestinal tract leading to bleeding. It was managed by endovascular techniques successfully.

CONCLUSION

Arterio-enteric fistulas following trauma are rare phenomena and they need a high index of suspicion for diagnosis. Once diagnosed, they can be managed based on their location and patient physiology by interventional techniques, surgery, or a combination of the two.

Analysis of over 2 decades of colon injuries identifies optimal method of diversion: Does an end justify the means?

INTRODUCTION

Conflicting evidence exists regarding the definitive management of destructive colon injuries. Although diversion with an end ostomy can theoretically decrease initial complications, it mandates a more extensive reversal procedure. Conversely, anastomosis with proximal loop ostomy diversion, while simplifying the reversal, increases the number of suture lines and potential initial morbidity. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of diversion technique on morbidity and mortality in patients with destructive colon injuries.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with destructive colon injuries managed with diversion from 1996 to 2016 were stratified by demographics, severity of shock and injury, operative management, and timing of reversal. Outcomes, including ostomy complications (obstruction, ischemia, readmission) and reversal complications (obstruction, abscess, suture line failure, fascial dehiscence), were compared between patients managed with a loop versus end colostomy. Patients with rectal injuries and who died within 24 hours were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 115 patients were identified: 80 with end colostomy and 35 with loop ostomy. Ostomy complications occurred in 22 patients (19%), and 11 patients (10%) suffered reversal complications. There was no difference in ostomy-related (2.9% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.99) mortality. For patients without a planned ventral hernia (PVH), there was no difference in ostomy complications between patients managed with a loop versus end colostomy (12% vs. 18%, p = 0.72). However, patients managed with a loop ostomy had a shorter reversal operative time (95 vs. 245 minutes, p = 0.002) and reversal length of stay (6 vs. 10, p = 0.03) with fewer reversal complications (0% vs. 36%, p = 0.02). For patients with a PVH, there was no difference in outcomes between patients managed with a loop versus end colostomy.

CONCLUSION

For patients without PVH, anastomosis with proximal loop ostomy reduced reversal-related complications, operative time, LOS, and hospital charges without compromising initial morbidity. Therefore, loop ostomy should be the preferred method of diversion, if required, following destructive colon injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level IV.

Contemporary management of rectal trauma - A South African experience

INTRODUCTION

The management of rectal trauma remains controversial. There are three modalities which have been used to manage these injuries; proximal diversion (PD), washout of the distal rectum (DRW) and presacral drainage (PSD). The EAST group tentatively advocate mandatory proximal diversion for extraperitoneal rectal injuries and omitting DRW or PSD. Other authors have suggested that diversion can be eschewed in patients with an intraperitoneal injury which can be primarily repaired. In light of all these controversies, this project set out to review our experience with rectal injuries over the last seven years with the objective of reviewing our use of PD, PSD and DRW.

METHODS

Patients aged greater than or equal to 15 years with rectal injuries during December 2012 to July 2019 were included. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, management strategy (operative or non-operative), complications, patient residential status (urban or rural), hospital and intensive care duration of stay, and 30-day mortality rates were assessed.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 51 patients with a rectal injury were treated. There were 45 (88%) males and the median age was 29 (22-39) years. There were 7 (14%) blunt mechanisms, 41 (80%) penetrating mechanisms and 3 (6%) combined blunt and penetrating mechanisms. The median ISS was 13 (9-18). Of the 50 rectal injuries ultimately treated at our institution, there were 31 extraperitoneal and 14 intraperitoneal injuries. There were five combined intra and extraperitoneal injuries. A total of 21 rigid sigmoidoscopies and a single flexible sigmoidoscopy were performed. A total of 24 patients underwent a CT scan. There were 13 primary repairs and 45 PD. A single patient required a PSD. Of the 34 documented complications, 15 (44%) were related to sepsis and can be attributed to the rectal injury. The overall mortality rate was 11.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal injuries are associated with significant septic related morbidity and mortality. Although we have begun to avoid diversion in a small subset of patients with an intraperitoneal injury, we continue to perform PD for the vast majority of patients with a rectal injury. We do not perform DRW and PSD is used in highly selective cases.

Concomitant bladder and rectal injuries: Results from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Rectal Injury Study Group

BACKGROUND

Combined traumatic injuries to the rectum and bladder are rare. We hypothesized that the combination of bladder and rectal injures would have worse outcomes than rectal injury alone.

METHODS

This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 traumatic rectal injury patients who were admitted to one of 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, and management of rectal injury were collected. Patients who sustained a rectal injury alone were compared with patients who sustained a combined injury to the bladder and rectum. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine if abdominal complications, mortality, and length of stay were impacted by a concomitant bladder injury after adjusting for cofounders.

RESULTS

There were 424 patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury, of which 117 (28%) had a combined injury to the bladder. When comparing the patients with a combined bladder/rectal injury to the rectal alone group, there was no difference in admission demographics admission physiology, or Injury Severity Score. There were also no differences in management of the rectal injury and no difference in abdominal complications (13% vs. 16%, p = 0.38), mortality (3% vs. 2%, p = 0.68), or length of stay (17 days vs. 21 days, p = 0.10). When looking at only the 117 patients with a combined injury, the addition of a colostomy did not significantly decrease the rate of abdominal complications (14% vs. 8%, p = 0.42), mortality (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.99), or length of stay (17 days vs. 17 days, p = 0.94). After adjusting for cofounders (AAST rectal injury grade, sex, damage-control surgery, diverting colostomy, and length of stay) the presence of a bladder injury did not impact outcomes.

CONCLUSION

For patients with traumatic rectal injury, a concomitant bladder injury does not increase the rates of abdominal complications, mortality, or length of stay. Furthermore, the addition of a diverting colostomy for management of traumatic bladder and rectal injury does not change outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; prognostic/therapeutic.

Rectal Injury After Foreign Body Insertion: Secondary Analysis From the AAST Contemporary Management of Rectal Injuries Study Group

BACKGROUND

Retained rectal foreign bodies are a common but incompletely studied problem. This study defined the epidemiology, injury severity, and outcomes after rectal injuries following foreign body insertion.

METHODS

Twenty-two level I trauma centers retrospectively identified all patients sustaining a rectal injury in this AAST multi-institutional trial (2005-2014). Only patients injured by foreign body insertion were included in this secondary analysis. Exclusion criteria were death before rectal injury management or ≤48 h of admission. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Study groups were defined as partial thickness (AAST grade I) versus full thickness (AAST grades II-V) injuries. Subgroup analysis was performed by management strategy (nonoperative versus operative).

RESULTS

After exclusions, 33 patients were identified. Mean age was 41 y (range 18-57), and 85% (n = 28) were male. Eleven (33%) had full thickness injuries and 22 (67%) had partial thickness injuries, of which 14 (64%) were managed nonoperatively and 8 (36%) operatively (proximal diversion alone [n = 3, 14%]; direct repair with proximal diversion [n = 2, 9%]; laparotomy without rectal intervention [n = 2, 9%]; and direct repair alone [n = 1, 5%]). Subgroup analysis of outcomes after partial thickness injury demonstrated significantly shorter hospital length of stay (2 ± 1; 2 [1-5] versus 5 ± 2; 4 [2-8] d, P = 0.0001) after nonoperative versus operative management.

CONCLUSIONS

Although partial thickness rectal injuries do not require intervention, difficulty excluding full thickness injuries led some surgeons in this series to manage partial thickness injuries operatively. This was associated with significantly longer hospital length of stay. Therefore, we recommend nonoperative management after a retained rectal foreign body unless full thickness injury is conclusively identified.

Traumatic rectal injuries: Is the combination of computed tomography and rigid proctoscopy sufficient?

BACKGROUND

There are no clear guidelines for the best test or combination of tests to identify traumatic rectal injuries. We hypothesize that computed tomography (CT) and rigid proctoscopy (RP) will identify all injuries.

METHODS

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study (2004-2015) of patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury. Patients with known rectal injuries who underwent both CT and RP as part of their diagnostic workup were included. Only patients with full thickness injuries (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade II-V) were included. Computed tomography findings of rectal injury, perirectal stranding, or rectal wall thickening and RP findings of blood, mucosal abnormalities, or laceration were considered positive.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients were identified. Mean age was 32 years, 85(79%) were male, and 67(63%) involved penetrating mechanisms. A total of 36 (34%) and 100 (94%) patients had positive CT and RP findings, respectively. Only 3 (3%) patients had both a negative CT and negative RP. On further review, each of these three patients had intraperitoneal injuries and had indirect evidence of rectal injury on CT scan including pneumoperitoneum or sacral fracture.

CONCLUSION

As stand-alone tests, neither CT nor RP can adequately identify traumatic rectal injuries. However, the combination of both test demonstrates a sensitivity of 97%. Intraperitoneal injuries may be missed by both CT and RP, so patients with a high index of suspicion and/or indirect evidence of rectal injury on CT scan may necessitate laparotomy for definitive diagnosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic, level IV.

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.

Pneumatic Colorectal Injury Caused by High Pressure Compressed Air

The pneumatic colorectal injury caused by high pressure compressed air are rare and can be fatal. Herein, we present a case of 45-year-old male who developed sudden onset of severe abdominal pain after cleaning the dust on his pants with high pressure compressed air gun dust cleaner. Emergent exploratory laparotomy was done which findings are a huge rectal perforation with multiple serosal and subserosal tear in sigmoid to splenic flexure of colon. Anterior resection with left hemicolectomy, and temporary transverse colostomy was performed. Postoperative course was uneventful. Recently, prognosis is generally favorable because of prompt diagnosis and emergent surgical management.

Femoral Head Dislocation into the Rectum Following Blunt Trauma

Traumatic hip dislocations require prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent avascular necrosis of the femoral head. This injury is further complicated when there is an ipsilateral femur fracture. Here, we present what is likely the first reported case of a patient with traumatic hip dislocation and ipsilateral femur fracture with transrectal displacement of the femoral head. The patient presented to a level one trauma center in 2006 as a transfer from another facility after being thrown from a pickup truck. Upon initial evaluation, a foreign body was palpated in the rectum. Computed tomography (CT) imaging showed that the right femoral head was lodged within the pelvis. In the operating room, an exploratory laparotomy was performed, and anoscopy confirmed the placement of the femoral head within the rectal lumen. The femoral head was extracted from the rectum transanally. The operation was abbreviated, as the patient became hemodynamically unstable, and he was taken to the intensive care unit. He returned to the operating room the following day for a repeat washout and proximal diversion. Despite numerous orthopedic procedures and operative washouts, he ultimately underwent a right hip disarticulation. Physicians should be aware that intracorporeal femoral head displacement is possible in select patients who have experienced a high-energy trauma mechanism. This is a complicated, highly morbid injury that poses various management challenges to orthopedic and acute care surgeons.