Stercoral Colitis in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Review of Presentation, Management, and Outcomes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Stercoral colitis is inflammation of the bowel wall caused by fecal impaction. Despite reported high morbidity and risk of perforation, little research assessing outcomes is available. This study characterizes the presentation, management, and outcomes of emergency department patients with stercoral colitis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of ED patients with stercoral colitis identified on computed tomography (CT) scan. Of 814, 522 visits to multiple EDs across the US, 269 met the inclusion criteria. Variables regarding patient presentation, management, and outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records. Results were analyzed with percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Of 269 patients, the median age was 76 years. The most common chief concern was abdominal pain/distension (33.8%). However, abdominal pain was documented as absent in 62.1% of cases. The most common CT findings included fecal impaction (96.7%), bowel wall inflammation (72.9%), and fat stranding (48.3%). Eighty-four (31.2%) patients were discharged home from the ED, and over half of these (45/84, 53.6%) received no enema, laxatives, or disimpaction. Overall, 9 patients (3.3%, 95% CI 1.6% to 6.5%) required surgical management of a related complication within 3 months, 27 (10.0%, 95% CI 6.8% to 14.4%) returned to the ED within 72 hours, and 9 (3.3%, 95% CI 1.6% to 6.5%) died from a cause related to stercoral colitis within 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Patients with stercoral colitis often present in a nonspecific manner, and short-term mortality is substantial. In this study, most discharged patients did not receive recommended treatment. This represents the largest ED study of stercoral colitis and provides further evidence linking this diagnosis with adverse outcomes.

Women Authorship Trends in the Highest-Impact Anesthesiology Journals from 2005 to 2021

Background: Although women and men have matriculated into medical schools in similar proportions since the 1980s, recent data indicate that anesthesiology is lagging in gender equity, especially in academic leadership roles.^1,2 As promotion in academic medicine is strongly influenced by publications, understanding whether a lack of women authorship is contributing to this gender gap is crucial.^3,4 This article aims to assess how woman authorship trends have changed in the last 16 years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The five highest impact journals in anesthesia were identified as Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, PAIN, and Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. Number of total authors, including women, men, and unknown gender authors as well as incidence of woman first and/or last author, was documented from articles published in 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2021. Results: This analysis shows that women are gaining representation in anesthesia publications. Overall, there was a statistically significant increase in the total number of women authors and women first and last authorship. However, as of 2021, women still only represented ∼40% of total and first authors and ∼24% of last authors. In addition, increase in first/last woman authorship was not present in all journals when stratified. Conclusion: These journal differences may suggest the editorial evaluation process as a potential source of gender bias. There was a statistically significant relationship between women senior authors and articles with 50% or more women authors, indicating that woman mentorship is contributing to closing equity gap. These data present a starting point for further investigations into gender disparities within anesthesia to continue the forward progression for women in academic medicine.