Applicability of an established management algorithm for colon injuries following blunt trauma

Isolated sigmoid colon disruption after blunt abdominal trauma: Case report

Isolated colon injuries following blunt abdominal trauma have been reported at a rate of 0.1%-0.5%, with isolated sigmoid colon injuries involved in only 34.8% of single colon injuries. Surgical treatment options include recto-colonic anastomosis, resection with or without recto-colonic anastomosis, and colostomy. We report the case of a 39-year-old male patient diagnosed with isolated sigmoid colon rupture after a traffic accident, identified using contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography. The patient underwent emergency surgery, during which the Hartmann procedure was performed. This included excision of the sigmoid colon at both ends of the hiatus, creation of a proximal colostomy, closure of the distal end, and repair of the sigmoid disruption segment. Seven days after surgery, the patient's clinical symptoms were stable, and he was discharged.

Impact of Concomitant Traumatic Pancreatic and Colon Injuries on Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Colon and pancreatic injuries have both long been independently associated with intraabdominal infectious complications in trauma patients. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of concomitant pancreatic injury on outcomes in patients with traumatic colon injuries.

METHODS

Consecutive patients over a 3-year period who underwent operative management of colon injuries were identified. Patient characteristics, severity of injury and shock, presence and grade of pancreatic injury, and intraoperative packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions were recorded. Outcomes including intraabdominal abscess formation and suture line failure were collected and compared. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was then performed to determine the impact of concomitant pancreatic injury on intraabdominal abscess formation.

RESULTS

243 patients with traumatic colon injuries were identified. 17 of these also had pancreatic injuries. Patients with combined colon and pancreatic injuries were clinically similar to those with isolated colon injuries with respect to age, gender, penetrating mechanism of injury, admission lactate, ISS, suture line failure, and admission systolic blood pressure. Both intraabdominal abscess rates (88.2% vs 29.6%, P < .001) and intraoperative PRBC transfusions (8 vs 1 units, P = .004) were higher in the combined pancreatic and colon injury group. Multivariable logistic regression identified both intraoperative PRBC transfusions (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.15; P < .001) and concomitant pancreatic injury (odds ratio, 14.8; 95% confidence interval, 3.92-96.87; P < .001) as independent predictors of intraabdominal abscess formation.

DISCUSSION

Both intraoperative PRBC transfusions and presence of concomitant pancreatic injury are independent predictors of intraabdominal abscess formation in patients with traumatic colon injuries.

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.

Complete transection of the descending colon following blunt abdominal trauma

We present the case of a man in his 30s who was crushed between two vehicles sustaining blunt trauma to his lower limbs and torso. The patient was in shock on arrival to the emergency department, and immediate resuscitation was given with massive transfusion protocol activation. Once the patient's haemodynamic status was stabilised, a CT scan revealed a complete colon transection. The patient was taken to the operating theatre where a midline laparotomy was performed, and the transected descending colon was managed with a segmental resection and handsewn anastomosis. The patient followed an unremarkable postoperative course, with bowels opening on day 8 postoperatively. Colon injuries are rare following blunt abdominal trauma, and a delay in diagnosis may lead to increased morbidity and mortality. As such, a low threshold for surgical intervention is recommended.

Contemporary management of blunt colonic injuries - Experience from a level one trauma centre in New Zealand

Introduction

Blunt colonic injury (BCI) is relatively rare, and literature on the topic is sparse. This study reviews our contemporary experience in its management at a level-one trauma centre in New Zealand.

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective study (January 2012 to December 2020) that included all patients who sustained a BCI managed at Waikato Hospital, New Zealand.

Results

Of the total of 1181 patients with blunt abdominal trauma, 69 (6%) of them sustained a BCI (49% male, mean age: 36 years). 78 separate colonic injuries were identified in the 69 cases. The most commonly injured segment was the ascending colon 49% (38/78). Eighty percent (55/69) underwent a CT scan, with only 16 showing definite evidence of a colonic injury. AAST Grade 1 was the most common (81%). Fifteen patients underwent damage control surgery. All 11 grade 1 injuries were repaired primarily, whilst the other four grade 4 and 5 colonic injuries were resected, with 3 having a subsequent stoma formation and one delayed anastomosis. There were four mortalities. Patients who had negative or equivocal admission CT findings for colonic injury had delays to the operating theatre and had poorer outcomes.

Conclusion

BCI is rare but is associated with a prolonged hospital stay. The treatment of BCI is similar to that of penetrating colonic injury. CT appeared inaccurate in many cases.

Transforming the management of colon injury: Dr Timothy C Fabian - scholar, scientist, leader, and teacher

Dr Fabian and his colleagues have transformed the management of colon injury during a span of more than four decades. They have done so by following a patient-centered, rigorous, and dogged approach to improving patient care and standardizing care with a simplified and widely applicable algorithm. All non-destructive colon injuries are primarily repaired. Healthy patients without massive blood loss who have sustained destructive wounds are treated with resection and anastomosis without fecal diversion. Patients with coexisting significant medical conditions or those requiring greater than 6 units of packed red blood cell(PRBC) transfusions are treated with resection and fecal diversion. Following this simple algorithm has led to a low rate of anastomotic leak with minimal colon-related morbidity in penetrating and blunt colon trauma and in those patients requiring abbreviated laparotomy/damage control procedures. During his four decades in Memphis, Dr Fabian established, led, and developed a regional trauma system which transformed trauma care, significantly improving survival and minimizing disability of patients in the Memphis community and across the entire mid-South region. I was fortunate to be a trauma and surgical critical care fellow 30 years ago in Memphis. As a leader, Dr Fabian gave us the freedom to pursue our own interests and explore ideas with full academic freedom with only one caveat-always do the right thing for our patient. A general principle championed by Dr Fabian is that patient care is not a means to some other goal (academic, reputational, or financial); no, serving the patient's interests first is the reason we exist as surgeons and the reason why the trauma system exists. This human-centered approach was central to the Memphis approach to trauma care led by Timothy C Fabian and will live on in the work of those who are following his leadership.

Nonoperative management of colon and mesocolon injuries caused by blunt trauma: three case reports

The therapeutic approach for colon injury has changed continuously with the evolution of management strategies for trauma patients. In general, immediate laparotomy can be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients with positive findings on extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma. However, in the case of hemodynamically stable patients, an additional evaluation like computed tomography (CT) is required. Surgical treatment is often required if prominent mesenteric extravasation, free fluid, bowel infarction, and/or colon wall perforation are observed. However, immediate intervention in hemodynamically stable patients without indications for surgical treatment remains questionable. Three patients with colon and mesocolon injuries caused by blunt trauma were treated by nonoperative management. At the time of admission, they were alert and their vital signs were stable. Colon and mesocolon injuries, large hematoma, colon wall edema, and/or ischemia were revealed on CT. However, no prominent mesenteric extravasation, free fluid, bowel infarction, and/or colon wall perforation were observed. In two cases, conservative treatment was performed without worsening abdominal pain or laboratory tests. Follow-up CT showed improvement without additional treatment. In the third case, follow-up CT and percutaneous drainage were performed in considering the persistent left abdominal discomfort, fever, and elevated inflammatory markers of the patient. After that, outpatient CT showed improvement of the hematoma. In conclusion, nonoperative management can be considered as a therapeutic option for mesocolon and colon injuries caused by blunt trauma of selected cases, despite the presence of large hematoma and ischemia, if there are no clear indications for immediate intervention.

WSES guidelines on blunt and penetrating bowel injury: diagnosis, investigations, and treatment

The aim of this paper was to review the recent literature to create recommendations for the day-to-day diagnosis and surgical management of small bowel and colon injuries. Where knowledge gaps were identified, expert consensus was pursued during the 8th International Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery Annual (September 2021, Edinburgh). This process also aimed to guide future research.

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.

Delayed presentation of an isolated sigmoid Colon injury following blunt abdominal trauma: A case report with review of literature

Introduction and importance

Isolated Colon injury due to blunt abdominal trauma is very rare. Due to lack of a definitive diagnostic method; it's very challenging to detect such injury and this will lead to delay in treatment and subsequently resulting in high morbidity and mortality. The current literature is relatively sparse concerning the management of blunt colon injuries.

Case presentation

Here, we report a case of a 17-year-old male patient with isolated sigmoid injury presented 5 days after MVC. He underwent sigmoid resection and end colostomy followed by reversal 6 weeks later. Currently, the patient is disease-free with a completely healed wound.

Conclusion

The purpose behind this paper is to raise clinical suspicion regarding delayed presentation of blunt abdominal trauma and it effect on operative decision, so that timely diagnosis and proper management could be carried out. And to discuss the applicability of the defined management algorithm for penetrating colon injury on delay blunts colonic injury.

•

Isolated Colon injury due to blunt abdominal trauma is very rare and its very challenging to detect.

•

We have found that only few cases have been reported for Delayed Presentation Of An Isolated Colonic Injury Following Blunt Abdominal Trauma.

•

The purpose of this report is to discuss surgical management in light of our experience.

•

We believe that the defined management algorithm for penetrating colon injury can’t be applied to delay injury as in this case the colon are more vulnerable which increases risk of post-operative complication.

•

Additional research is needed to completely define the patient population that benefits from fecal diversion after delayed blunt colon injury requiring resection.

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.

[Management of traumatic intestinal injury of mass casualties]

While intestinal injury is relatively rare in blunt abdominal trauma, it is common in penetrating abdominal trauma. Intestinal injury cannot be detected effectively by computed tomography (CT); therefore penetrating abdominal injury or abdominal signs in blunt trauma require liberal indications for explorative laparotomy. In mass casualty situations patients with hemodynamic instability and abdominal signs should be prioritized for surgery. Besides intra-abdominal hemorrhage the major issue is septic complications due to intestinal perforation. The current surgical strategy should reflect the number of injured patients and the individual pattern of injuries. Damage control surgery is not an effective strategy to improve survival rates in severely injured patients or in mass casualty situations. Damage control surgery focuses on lifesaving procedures especially bleeding control and control of contamination. This includes an open abdomen strategy with later definitive repair and abdominal wall closure.

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.

Defining Outcomes after Colon Resection in Blunt Trauma: Is Diversion or Primary Anastomosis More Favorable?

Previous literature demonstrates the safety of primary repair in penetrating colon injury requiring resection, without the creation of a diverting ostomy. It is unknown whether a similar approach can be applied to patients with blunt colon injury. The aim of this study was to measure outcomes in patients who underwent colon resection with and without ostomy creation after blunt trauma injury to help direct future management. Using the National Trauma Data Bank for years 2008 to 2012, we identified patients with blunt trauma mechanisms who underwent colectomy. Patients were stratified into two groups: primary anastomosis and diversion with ostomy. Primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of stay and perioperative complications. All risk-adjusted analyses were performed using logistic regression with consideration of interactions. Five hundred eighty-one observations met our inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics between the two groups were similar with the exception of age (37.3 vs 42.2 years, P < 0.001) and admission Glasgow coma score (13.2 vs 12.1, P = 0.002). Risk-adjusted mortality for the two groups was not statistically significant (2.3% vs 3.0%, P = 0.63); however, patients with primary anastomosis had a shorter length of stay (18.2 vs 28.1, P < 0.001), fewer days in the intensive care unit (10.9 vs 16.2, P < 0.001), and fewer ventilator days (10.5 vs 14.6, P = 0.01). In patients requiring colon resection after blunt trauma, mortality is not different for those who receive a primary anastomosis versus ostomy. Patients without diversion had shorter hospital stays, intensive care unit days, and ventilator days. These data support that primary anastomosis is safe in this patient population.

Single-Contrast CT for Detecting Bowel Injuries in Penetrating Abdominopelvic Trauma

OBJECTIVE

Many centers advocate use of triple-contrast (IV, oral, and rectal) CT for assessing hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating abdominopelvic trauma. Enteric contrast material has several disadvantages, leading our practice to pursue use of single-contrast (IV) CT. We conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical records at our institution to assess the accuracy of single-contrast CT for diagnosing bowel injuries in cases of penetrating abdominopelvic trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who presented to our emergency department between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2014, with penetrating abdominopelvic trauma, underwent an abdominopelvic CT, and had surgery performed thereafter. We reviewed pertinent emergency department records for details regarding the site of injury, the number of injuries per patient, and the type of weapon used. We correlated CT reports with operative notes for presence and sites of bowel injury.

RESULTS

A total of 274 patients (median age, 27 years old) met our inclusion criteria; 77% had sustained gunshot wounds (GSWs). CT showed bowel injury in 173 cases; surgery revealed bowel injury in 162 cases. CT had 142 true-positive, 31 false-positive, 81 true-negative, and 20 false-negative cases, resulting in sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 72%, positive predictive value of 82%, and negative predictive value of 80% for detecting bowel injuries. CT had the highest sensitivity and specificity in patients with multiple GSWs (94% and 79%, respectively) and those with injuries to the stomach and rectum.

CONCLUSION

Single-contrast CT can show bowel injuries in patients with penetrating abdominopelvic trauma with accuracy comparable with that reported for triple-contrast CT.

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.

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.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Applicability of an established management algorithm for destructive colon injuries after abbreviated laparotomy: a 17-year experience

BACKGROUND

For more than a decade, operative decisions (resection plus anastomosis vs diversion) for colon injuries, at our institution, have followed a defined management algorithm based on established risk factors (pre- or intraoperative transfusion requirements of more than 6 units packed RBCs and/or presence of significant comorbid diseases). However, this management algorithm was originally developed for patients managed with a single laparotomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicability of this algorithm to destructive colon injuries after abbreviated laparotomy (AL) and to determine whether additional risk factors should be considered.

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive patients over a 17-year period with colon injuries after AL were identified. Nondestructive injuries were managed with primary repair. Destructive wounds were resected at the initial laparotomy followed by either a staged diversion (SD) or a delayed anastomosis (DA) at the subsequent exploration. Outcomes were evaluated to identify additional risk factors in the setting of AL.

RESULTS

We identified 149 patients: 33 (22%) patients underwent primary repair at initial exploration, 42 (28%) underwent DA, and 72 (49%) had SD. Two (1%) patients died before re-exploration. Of those undergoing DA, 23 (55%) patients were managed according to the algorithm and 19 (45%) were not. Adherence to the algorithm resulted in lower rates of suture line failure (4% vs 32%, p = 0.03) and colon-related morbidity (22% vs 58%, p = 0.03) for patients undergoing DA. No additional specific risk factors for suture line failure after DA were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to an established algorithm, originally defined for destructive colon injuries after single laparotomy, is likewise efficacious for the management of these injuries in the setting of AL.