Management options in penetrating rectal injuries.

A retrospective analysis of 54 patients (1976-1989) with penetrating rectal injuries was carried out to evaluate the options in management. The diagnosis was made on proctosigmoidoscopy in 39 patients and at laparotomy in 15. Three patients died within 24 hours from extensive associated trauma (Abdominal Trauma Index [ATI] 39.2). In the remaining 51 patients, rectal wound repair was performed in seven patients, four without proximal colostomy (mean ATI 16.5) and three with colostomy (mean ATI 24.8) without complications. Colostomy and presacral drainage with or without repair were employed in 43 patients. Twenty-one of these patients had rectal washout in addition. The other 22 patients did not have this procedure. The incidence of pelvic abscess in these two groups, who had comparable mean ATI, was identical (4.7% and 4.5%, respectively). One other patient with an extraperitoneal rectal injury had a colostomy alone without presacral drainage and subsequently developed pelvic abscess. The overall incidence of abscess was three of 51 patients or 5.8%. There were no late deaths from sepsis. It is concluded that colostomy (loop or end) and presacral drainage are the most important components of rectal injury management. Small and isolated rectal or rectosigmoid perforations may be repaired primarily without fecal diversion. The value of distal rectal irrigation remains to be proven, but it may be indicated in high-energy injuries of the rectum.     

Operative Management of Civilian Rectal Gunshot Wounds: Simpler Is Better

Extraperitoneal rectal gunshot wounds have been managed with a variety of methods from simple diverting colostomy to combinations of rectal repair, proximal diversion, transperitoneal or presacral drainage, and distal bowel irrigation techniques. Treatment methodology is chosen based on anecdotal experience, and there is no clear evidence that any technique is superior to the others. The objective of this study was to compare 3 methods of managing civilian extraperitoneal gunshot wounds. Retrospective analysis of 30 consecutive patients with extraperitoneal rectal gunshot wounds was undertaken. Patients were treated with 1 of these 3 techniques: (1) simple diverting colostomy without rectal repair (group A, 12 patients); (2) diverting colostomy and rectal repair (group B, 12 patients); and (3) diverting colostomy and presacral drainage without repair (group C, 6 patients). Injury, hospital course, and outcome data were compared. The 3 groups were similar in age, injury severity, admission hemodynamics, preoperative and intraoperative time, blood loss, fecal contamination, and associated injuries. The overall incidence of complications was 27% (8/27): 25% (3/12) in group A, 33% (4/12) in group B, and 17% (1/6) in group C (p= NS). Complications directly associated with the rectal injury were found in 2 cases (7%): 1 group A patient developed a vesicorectal fistula and 1 group B patient developed a rectocutaneous fistula. For 10 patients with both rectal and bladder injuries, the complication rates for groups A, B, and C were 50%, 20%, and 0%, respectively (p= NS). No patient died. In conclusion, diverting colostomy without rectal repair or drainage appears to be safe for the management of most civilian retroperitoneal rectal gunshot wounds. Additional surgical maneuvers may be required for combined rectal and urinary trauma or other complex rectal injuries. Sound surgical principles, tailored to the individual case, should overrule any unproven dogmas.     

Management of rectal trauma

A 9 year review of rectal trauma was conducted. Forty-seven patients had major rectal trauma requiring diversion. Twenty-seven percent of patients presented in shock. Routine perioperative antibiotics were administered. Ninety-five percent of patients had positive findings on digital rectal examination or proctoscopy. There were 91 associated injuries. Rectal injuries were repaired in 19 patients. The absence of repair had no influence on postoperative morbidity or length of hospital stay. Ninety-five percent of patients had presacral drainage. One patient had distal rectal irrigation. Both loop and divided colostomies were utilized with no difference in morbidity or hospital stay. There were no deaths. Proctoscopy is essential in patients with wounds in proximity to the rectum. Diversion and presacral drainage for rectal injury is associated with a low mortality and acceptable morbidity. Rectal washout does not appear to be essential in civilian rectal injuries.     

Diagnostic laparoscopy and diverting sigmoid loop colostomy in the management of civilian extraperitoneal rectal gunshot injuries

BACKGROUND: This prospective study reviews the management of isolated civilian extraperitoneal rectal gunshot injuries using a protocol of diagnostic laparoscopy and abdominal wall trephine diverting loop colostomy, without laparotomy, distal rectal washout and presacral drainage. METHODS: Patients admitted to the trauma unit at Groote Schuur Hospital between January 2000 and December 2002 with a rectal injury were evaluated. A rectal injury was confirmed by digital rectal examination and proctosigmoidoscopy. Missile peritoneal violation was excluded by diagnostic laparoscopy. Normal laparoscopy was followed by creation of a diverting sigmoid loop colostomy through an abdominal wall trephine, without a laparotomy. No distal rectal washout or presacral drainage was performed. RESULTS: Of the 104 patients admitted with 106 rectal injuries, 20 (19.2 per cent) qualified for inclusion in the study. All had sustained low-velocity gunshot injuries of which 18 exhibited a transpelvic trajectory. Diagnostic laparoscopy was normal and a trephine diverting loop sigmoid colostomy was performed in all 20 patients. No pelvic sepsis occurred. Two patients developed rectocutaneous fistulas, both of which resolved without surgical treatment. Nineteen stomas have since been closed. CONCLUSION: Low-velocity gunshot injuries isolated to the extraperitoneal rectum can be managed safely by laparoscopic exclusion of intraperitoneal missile penetration and diverting sigmoid loop colostomy, without laparotomy, distal rectal washout or presacral drainage     

Penetrating rectal trauma: management by anatomic distinction improves outcome

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists regarding the optimal management of penetrating rectal injuries, specifically with respect to the routine application of diversion and presacral drainage. Our previous experience suggested that management decisions based on precise anatomic characterization of injury relative to retroperitoneal involvement might improve outcome. A clinical pathway was developed and implemented. Patients managed by the pathway (PATH) were compared with the previous study (PREV, n=58) to determine the impact of the clinical pathway on outcome. METHODS: Consecutive patients with full-thickness penetrating rectal injury subsequent to the development of the pathway were evaluated. Intraperitoneal rectal injuries (IP) were treated with primary repair. Injuries to the proximal two-thirds and accessible distal one-third of the extraperitoneal rectum (EP) were treated with repair and selective fecal diversion. Inaccessible distal EP injuries were treated with diversion and presacral drainage. Infectious complications (wound infection, bacteremia, intraabdominal abscess, retroperitoneal abscess) were compared between the PATH and PREV groups. RESULTS: In all, 54 patients were identified. Demographics, injury severity, and preventive antibiotics (24-hour) were similar between groups. Overall infectious complication rate was 13% in the PATH group versus 31% in the PREV group (p<0.05). There was a zero incidence of retrorectal abscess in the PATH group versus 11% of the total complications in the PREV group. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the pathway resulted in a significant decrease in infectious morbidity. Management by anatomic distinction allows for omission of colostomy in most IP injuries and select EP injuries, while diminishing the risk of retrorectal abscess in EP injuries with the judicious application of presacral drainage.     

Civilian Extraperitoneal Rectal Gunshot Wounds: Surgical Management Made Simpler

Background Rectal injuries are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Controversy persists regarding routine presacral drainage, distal rectal washout (DRW), and primary repair of extraperitoneal rectal injuries. This retrospective review was performed to determine the outcome of rectal injuries in an urban trauma center with a high incidence of penetrating trauma where a non-aggressive surgical approach to these injuries is practiced. Methods The records of all patients with a full-thickness penetrating rectal injury admitted to the Trauma Center at Groote Schuur Hospital over a 4-year period were reviewed. These were reviewed for demographics, injury mechanism and perioperative management, anatomical site of the rectal injury, associated intra-abdominal injuries and their management. Infectious complications and mortality were noted. Intraperitoneal rectal injuries were primarily repaired, with or without fecal diversion. Extraperitoneal rectal injuries were generally left untouched and a diverting colostomy was done. Presacral drainage and DRW were not routinely performed. Results Ninety-two patients with 118 rectal injuries [intraperitoneal (7), extraperitoneal (59), combined (26)] were identified. Only two extraperitoneal rectal injuries were repaired. None had presacral drainage. Eighty-six sigmoid loop colostomies were done. Two (2.2%) fistula, one rectocutaneous, and one rectovesical, were recorded. There were nine (9.9%) infectious complications: surgical site infection (4), buttock abscess (1), buttock necrosis (1), pubic ramus osteitis (1), septic arthritis (2). No perirectal sepsis occurred. Conclusions Extraperitoneal rectal injuries due to low-velocity trauma can be safely managed by fecal diversion alone.     

Colostomy and drainage for civilian rectal injuries: is that all?

One hundred consecutive patients with injuries to the extraperitoneal rectum were treated over a ten-year period at an urban trauma center. The mechanisms of injury included firearms in 82 patients, stab wounds in 3 patients, a variety of other penetrating injuries in 10 patients, and in 5 patients the injuries resulted from blunt trauma. Treatment of the rectal injury was determined by the bias of the operating surgeon, the condition of the patient, and the magnitude of the rectal injury. Proximal loop colostomies were performed in 44 patients, diverting colostomies in 51 patients, Hartmann's procedure in 4 patients, and an abdominoperineal resection in 1 patient. Extraperitoneal rectal perforations were closed in 21 patients and the rectum was irrigated free of feces in 46 patients. Transperineal, presacral drainage was used in 93 patients. Infectious complications potentially related to the management of the rectal wound occurred in 11 patients (11%) and included abdominal or pelvic abscesses (4 patients), wound infections (6 patients), rectocutaneous fistulas (3 patients), and missile tract infections (2 patients). Four patients (4%) died as a result of their injuries. Of the therapeutic options available, statistical analysis revealed that only the failure to drain the presacral space increased the likelihood of infectious complications (p = 0.03); however, as it could not be determined with certainty that the use of, or failure to use, any particular therapeutic option had an effect on the risk of death. It is concluded that colostomy and drainage are the foundations of the successful treatment of civilian injuries to the extraperitoneal rectum. The use of adjuncts such as diverting colostomies, repair of the rectal wound, and irrigation of the rectum has little effect on mortality and morbidity.     

Same admission colostomy closure (SACC). A new approach to rectal wounds: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this project were to study the healing of protected rectal wounds (RWs) using contrast enemas (CEs) and to establish the safety of same admission colostomy closure (SACC) in terms of colostomy closure (CC) and rectal wound-related outcomes, for selected patients with radiologically healed RWs. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Traditional treatment of RWs has included a diverting colostomy that is closed 2 or more months later during a readmission. METHODS: All patients admitted with a rectal injury were entered into this prospective study, treated with a diverting colostomy and presacral drainage, and managed according to a postoperative protocol that included a CE per anus to detect healing of the RW. Patients with no leaking on their first CE, no infection, and anal continence underwent SACC. RESULTS: From 1990 to 1993, 30 consecutive patients had rectal injuries, 90% of which resulted from gunshot wounds. The first CE was performed in 29 patients 5 to 10 days after injury. In this group, 21 patients did not and 8 did have leakage from their RWs. The proportions of RWs radiologically healed at 7 and 10 days after injury were 55.2% and 75%, respectively. Sixteen patients with a normal CE underwent SACC 9 to 19 days after injury (mean, 12.4 days). There were two fecal fistulas (2 of 7; 28.6%) after simple suture closure, none (0 of 9) after resection of the stoma with end-to-end anastomosis, and no RW-related complications after SACC. The mean hospitalization time was 17.4 days. CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions were drawn: (1) CE confirmed healing of RWs in 75% of patients by 10 days after injury; (2) 60% of patients with RWs were candidates for SACC, and 53% were discharged with their colostomies closed; (3) SACC was performed without complications in 87.5% of patients with radiologically healed RWs; and (4) there were no RW-related complications after SACC.     

Anorectal avulsion: an unusual rectal injury

Traumatic injuries to the rectum although uncommon can result in virulent complications and even death. Diverting colostomy, presacral drainage, distal wash out and rectal repair, when feasible, have become the standard treatment for rectal injuries. We report an unusual case of rectal injury resulting in anorectal avulsion from skin and surrounding tissues.     

Diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of rectal trauma. Blunt versus penetrating

In the last 6 years, nine patients with blunt and 16 with penetrating rectal injuries were treated at University Hospital, Jacksonville, Florida. Blunt trauma was caused by vehicular accidents in seven patients and crush injuries in two. Penetrating rectal trauma was due to gunshot wounds in ten patients and foreign body insertion in six. All patients with blunt injury had bright red rectal bleeding, which led to diagnostic sigmoidoscopy. Rectal injury was identified at sigmoidoscopy in 12 patients who had penetrating wounds and at laparotomy in four patients. Thirteen patients who had penetrating rectal trauma had injury to only the rectum or to one additional organ. In contrast, all patients who had blunt rectal trauma had at least three associated injuries. In the penetrating group, 13 patients were treated by colostomy and mucus fistula; three patients with mucosal injury were managed nonoperatively. The only death occurred in a patient whose rectal injury was initially missed. Patients who had blunt rectal trauma were managed with colostomy and mucus fistula. Three patients died postoperatively, two of pelvic bleeding and one of head injury. Hemodynamic stabilization, colostomy and mucus fistula, presacral drainage, and rectal washout constitute proper treatment of patients with blunt or penetrating rectal trauma. Because of the greater number and severity of associated injuries, morbidity and mortality are higher after blunt rectal trauma.     

骨盆骨折并发直肠损伤诊治分析(附34例报告)

目的　探讨骨盆骨折并发直肠损伤的诊断和治疗方法。方法　回顾性分析 1988～2 0 0 3年我院收治的 3 4例骨盆骨折并发直肠损伤患者的临床资料 ,其中乙状结肠双腔造口 3 2例 ,回肠单腔造口 2例 ,均行充分引流和直肠冲洗。结果　除外 4例死于并发症 ,其余患者均痊愈出院 ;所有造口后存活者均行造口闭合术。结论　对骨盆骨折并直肠损伤患者采用造口转流粪便、骶前引流、直肠冲洗、防止并发症等综合治疗方法 ,可取得较好疗效     

结直肠损伤的手术治疗：附125例报告

目的:探讨结直肠损伤的手术治疗和围手术期处理。 方法:回顾性分析19年间收治的125例结直肠损伤患者的临床资料。结果:结肠和腹膜内直肠破裂69例中，初期缝合或切除吻合56例（81.16 %），行造口术11例，“损伤控制外科”术式2例。腹膜外直肠破裂18例中，14例行乙状结肠近端造口并骶前引流，4例一期修补未造口;其余38例非全层损伤患者，均做简单修补。全组死亡8例（6.40 %），6例术中、1例术后死于失血性休克，1例术后5 d死于胸腔感染。术后并发症包括局部感染6例、粘连性肠梗阻1例，均治愈。 结论:多数结肠和腹膜内直肠损伤可一期手术，应配合围手术期正确使用抗生素尤其甲硝唑。腹膜外直肠伤应分期手术，为阻断远端污染，应行乙状结肠近端造口而不选择襻式造口。     

COLORECTAL INJURY: WHERE DO WE STAND WITH REPAIR?

Background: The chief danger of colonic injury is sepsis resulting from faecal spill. Primary repair is now well established in the USA, particularly for penetrating injuries, in up to 81% of patients. However, in Australia, highly destructive blunt trauma forms a larger proportion of injuries, and the purpose of this study was to determine if there are any contrasts in the management of these patients. Method: A retrospective survey was undertaken over the past 20 years of all of the patients with full-thickness colorectal injuries presenting at the three major hospitals which receive multi-trauma patients in Brisbane. Results: Of 112 patients 114 sustained full-thickness colorectal injuries. Forty patients had penetrating injuries, 41 had blunt injuries and 33 had iatrogenic injuries. Primary repair or resection and anastomosis was performed in 39% of patients with colonic injuries and the leak rate was 8%. Exteriorized repairs had a 67% leak rate. A colostomy was used in 58% of patients. The mortality for penetrating injuries was zero. The mortality for blunt colonic injuries was 17% and for iatrogenic injuries was 7% but for blunt rectal injuries was 50%. The overall mortality was 10%. Colostomy closure had a 20% morbidity but no mortality. Conclusions: In the absence of shock, associated injuries, or gross faecal soiling primary repair or resection with anastomosis may be considered. For blunt injury, colostomy is still usually indicated, often with resection. For iatrogenic injury, when seen early, primary repair can be performed. We do not recommend exteriorized repair. Extraperitoneal rectal injuries require proximal colostomy and distal washout, with drainage where appropriate. Blunt devitalizing injury is relatively more common in Australia than in the USA and therefore there is less indication here for primary repair. Colostomy remains an important consideration in operative management.     

A new approach to extraperitoneal rectal injuries: laparoscopy and diverting loop sigmoid colostomy

BACKGROUND: Current management of extraperitoneal rectal injuries involves a laparotomy and diversion of the fecal stream. In this study, we review our experience with laparoscopy and diverting loop sigmoid colostomy without laparotomy in the management of these injuries. METHODS: All patients admitted to the trauma unit at Groote Schuur Hospital between January 1995 and May 2000 with a rectal injury were evaluated. The presence of a rectal injury was confirmed by rectal examination and proctosigmoidoscopy. Intraperitoneal injuries were excluded by laparoscopy. Only patients who did not have intraperitoneal injuries were included in the study. The patients were then managed with a diverting loop sigmoid colostomy created through an abdominal wall trephine without laparotomy. RESULTS: Ten patients were included in the study. In eight patients, laparoscopy excluded intraperitoneal injuries. All 10 patients had a diverting loop sigmoid colostomy fashioned. There were no complications related to either the rectal injury or colostomy. Nine stomas have since been closed. CONCLUSION: In patients with isolated extraperitoneal rectal injuries, laparoscopic exclusion of intraperitoneal injuries, followed by a diverting loop sigmoid colostomy, is a feasible option.     

Management of rectal injuries

We have reviewed the management of twentynine casualties with rectal injuries terated in Vietnam. A high incidence of virulent complications and a 22.2 per cent mortality occurred in eighteen casualties treated by conventional means with a divided sigmoid colostomy, rectal repair when feasible, and presacral drainage. The complications and deaths were invariably related to pelvic sepsis. Distal washout to prevent continued contamination from fecal material remaining in the defunctionalized rectosigmoid was employed in ten casualties in addition to the conventional measures. This resulted in a striking reduction in complications and no mortality. We also stress the importance of prompt diagnosis, direct control of hemorrhage, proper management of associated injuries, and adequate debridement.     

Rectal trauma: A retrospective analysis and guidelines for therapy

Twenty patients seen at Boston City Hospital required general or spinal anesthesia for rectal injuries, and 17 required laparotomy. Findings on sigmoidoscopy were falsely negative in 4 of 13 patients examined. Diagnosis was delayed in two patients. Associated injuries occurred in 55 percent, with the lower genitourinary tract being the area most frequently injured. Complications occurred in eight patients (40 percent). Abscess formation and bacteremia were the most common, but iatrogenic complications occurred in four patients. Pulmonary embolism occurred in two patients and was suspected in a third patient. Routine treatment included diverting colostomy with distal irrigation and adequate drainage. Repair of the injury was performed when possible. Two of the 20 patients (10 percent) died, one after a prolonged septic course and one from recurrent pulmonary embolism. Rectal trauma continues to be a challenging injury.     

Value of distal colon washout in civilian rectal trauma--reducing gut bacterial translocation

Recent experience with civilian rectal trauma challenges the military dictum advocating routine distal colon washout. Opponents contend that septic morbidity is not influenced by perioperative removal of feces from the rectosigmoid region. In an effort to elucidate this issue, we reviewed 27 consecutive patients sustaining extraperitoneal rectal trauma over the past 5 years. One patient, exsanguinating from abdominal vascular injury, was excluded from further analysis. In the remaining 26 patients, rectal injury was due to gunshot wound in 16 (62%), pelvic fracture in 8 (31%), and stab wound in 2 (7%). The mean Revised Trauma Score was 6.9 +/- 0.4, Abdominal Trauma Index 20.9 +/- 8.1, and Injury Severity Score 28.6 +/- 11.0. Proximal colostomy was done in all patients and presacral drains were placed in 23 (88%). Broad-spectrum antibiotics were administered for a minimum of 5 days. Thirteen (50%) of the group underwent intraoperative washout of the distal rectosigmoid colon, dictated by attending surgeon's preference; the other half did not. These two groups were otherwise comparable with respect to injury mechanism, shock on arrival, rectal wound severity, associated injuries, and perioperative blood transfusions. Major complications were greater in the no-washout versus washout groups: pelvic abscess, 46% vs. 8%; rectal fistulae, 23% vs. 8%; and sepsis, 15% vs. 8%. The single death (4%) occurred in the no-washout group. Although based on a small group of patients, these trends imply that distal colon washout reduces septic morbidity following civilian rectal trauma.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Radio-contrast imaging of the rectum prior to colostomy closure for rectal trauma--is routine use still justified?

This retrospective study was undertaken to assess the yield of radio-contrast imaging of the rectum before closure of colostomy following extraperitoneal rectal trauma. Sixty-nine patients (63 males) underwent colostomy closure in 36 months. All radio-contrast studies (colograms) performed before closure of colostomy were normal, and there were no deaths following closure. This study demonstrated that the yield from pre-closure radio-contrast imaging of the rectum after rectal trauma was negligible and did not influence colostomy closure. We conclude that while it may be appealing to suggest abandonment of its routine use, this investigation needs to be further evaluated prospectively with special attention given to injury to associated structures such as bone, bladder and vagina.     

The influence of injury severity on complication rates after primary closure or colostomy for penetrating colon trauma.

The management of penetrating colon injury has been frequently debated in the literature, yet few reports have evaluated primary closure versus diverting colostomy in similarly injured patients. Diverting colostomy is the standard of care when mucosal penetration is present, but primary closure in civilian practice has generally had excellent results, although it has been restricted to less severely injured patients. Because the degree of injury may influence choice of treatment in modern practice, various indices of injury severity have been proposed for assessment of patients with penetrating colon trauma. As yet, however, there has been no cross-comparison of repair type versus injury severity. A retrospective study 76 patients who sustained penetrating colon trauma between January 1, 1979 and December 31, 1985 and who survived for at least 24 hours was conducted. Different preferences among attending surgeons and a more aggressive approach to the use of primary closure during the years of study led to an essentially random use of primary closure and diverting colostomy for moderate levels of colon injury, with mandatory colostomy reserved for the most serious injuries. Primary closure was performed in 37 patients (three having resection and anastomosis), and colostomy was performed in 39 patients. Severity of injury was evaluated by the Injury Severity Score (ISS), Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index (PATI), and the Flint Colon Injury Score. Complications and outcome were evaluated as a function of severity of injury, and primary closure and colostomy were compared. Demographic profiles of the two groups did not differ regarding age, sex, mechanism of injury, shock, or delay between injury and operation. The mortality rate was 2.6% for each group. Major morbidity, including septic complications, occurred in 11% of the patients of the primary closure group and in 49% of those of the colostomy group. When PATI was less than 25, the Flint score was less than or equal to 2, or when the ISS was less than 25, primary closure resulted in fewer complications than did colostomy. Of the injury severity indices examined, the PATI most reliably predicted complications and specifically identified patients who whose outcome would be good with primary repair. These results suggest that the use of primary closure should be expanded in civilian penetrating colon trauma and that, even with moderate degrees of colon injury, primary closure provides an outcome equivalent to that provided by colostomy. In addition, the predictive value of the PATI suggests that it should be included along with other injury severity indices in trauma data bases.     

Management of complex perineal soft-tissue injuries

Debridement, fecal diversion, and rectal washout have been proposed as the primary therapy for complex perineal lacerations, but, in most series, survivors have a pelvic sepsis rate of 40-80%. In a retrospective study, six of 18 patients sustaining severe perineal lacerations died within the first few hours of injury due to exsanguination from pelvic injuries. The remaining 12 patients underwent sigmoidoscopy, diversion of the fecal stream with irrigation of the distal rectal stump, and radical initial debridement of necrotic soft tissue. Enteral access was obtained in two patients. In the patients with mandatory daily debridement and pulsatile irrigation, no pelvic sepsis occurred. In three patients without daily debridement, pelvic sepsis complicated recovery. The ability of patients to resume oral nutrition was significantly delayed, necessitating total parenteral nutrition in three patients. We conclude that sigmoidoscopy, total diversion of the fecal stream with irrigation of the distal rectal stump, enteral access for feeding, radical initial debridement of necrotic soft tissue, and mandatory daily debridement with pulsatile irrigation optimize recovery from this devastating injury.