Primary repair of colon wounds. A prospective trial in nonselected patients.

102 patients with penetrating intraperitoneal colon injuries were entered into a prospective study. Colon wound management was undertaken without regard to associated injuries or amount of fecal contamination. Primary repair was performed in 83 patients, segmental resection with anastomosis in 12, and resection with end colostomy in 7. There were no suture line failures in the primary repair group, and one suture line failure in the anastomosis group. The one failure was in a patient who underwent repeated explorations for bleeding before the leak occurred. The septic complication rate was 33% of the entire series and was unrelated to primary repair. Logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors for sepsis included transfusion greater than or equal to 4 units (p less than 0.02), more than two associated injuries (p less than 0.04), significant contamination (p less than 0.05), and increasing colon injury severity scores (p less than 0.02). The method of colon wound management, location and mode of injury, presence of hypotension (BP less than 90), and age did not significantly contribute to sepsis. We conclude that nearly all penetrating colon wounds can be repaired primarily or with resection and anastomosis, regardless of risk factors.     

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.     

Aggressive definitive management of penetrating colon injuries: 136 cases with 3.7 per cent mortality

One hundred thirty six patients with penetrating colon injuries (gunshot wounds, 95; stab wounds, 41) were retrospectively analyzed. A scoring system, the Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index (P.A.T.I.), was employed to quantitatively assess the severity of injuries in each patient. Of 67 patients with right colon injuries, 48 (72%) were treated definitively by primary repair (32) and by resection and ileocolic anastomosis (16), with minimal morbidity. In 69 patients with left colon injuries, 47 (68%) were treated by colostomy (28) and by exteriorized repair (19). Overall, exteriorized repair was successful in 74% of patients. All five mortalities (3.7%) were related to associated injuries. It is concluded that the majority of the right colon injuries can be treated definitively. Exteriorized repair should be the preferred method whenever colostomy is considered, except in severe left colon injuries requiring resection.     

Management of penetrating colon injuries. A prospective randomized trial.

Fifty-six patients with penetrating colon injuries were entered into a randomized prospective study. Management of the colon injury was not dependent on the number of associated injuries, amount of fecal contamination, shock, or blood requirements. Twenty-eight patients were treated with primary repair or resection and anastomosis and 28 patients were treated by diversion (24 colostomy, 3 ileostomy, 1 jejunostomy). The average Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index score was 23.9 for the diversion group and 26 for the primary repair group. There were five (17.9%) septic-related complications in the diversion group. This included four intra-abdominal abscesses and one subcutaneous wound infection. There were six (21.4%) septic-related complications in the primary repair group. This included one wound infection, two positive blood cultures, and three intra-abdominal abscesses. There were no episodes of suture line failure in the primary repair/anastomosis group. The authors conclude that, independent of associated risk factors, primary repair or resection and anastomosis should be considered for treatment of all patients in the civilian population with penetrating colon wounds.     

Colon trauma: further support for primary repair

During a 5 year period, 137 patients who sustained intraperitoneal colon injuries were retrospectively analyzed. One hundred fourteen were considered for evaluation. The method of colon wound management and infectious complications thought to be secondary to the colon wound were reviewed. These patients were admitted to the trauma service and underwent exploratory laparotomy for their injuries. The penetrating abdominal trauma index, as well as other risk factors, were evaluated for their efficacy in predicting potential complications associated with the colon wound. Sixty-four percent of patients were managed by primary closure, 27 percent by end colostomy or end ileostomy, and 9 percent by exteriorization of the injury. The complication rates for these categories were 18, 42, and 40 percent, respectively. There were no significant differences in complications in terms of location and mode of injury. This review confirms that the presence of shock, transfusion (4 or more units), significant contamination, and associated injuries (evaluated by the penetrating abdominal trauma index) contribute to the development of complications. There were no disruptions of the suture line in the primary closure group. We believe that infections and septic complications are secondary to the original injury to the colon and not related to the method of repair. Primary repair of all colon wounds not requiring resection may be feasible. Prospective evaluation of that approach is indicated.     

Management of blunt and penetrating colon injuries.

The records of 28 patients with traumatic colon injuries (TCI) were retrospectively reviewed. Sixteen patients (57%) with 17 TCI had blunt trauma, whereas 8 patients (29%) experienced penetrating trauma. Four TCI were from intraluminal injury. Blunt trauma commonly involved the left colon, whereas penetrating trauma usually involved the right or transverse colon. Fifty-nine percent of the blunt TCI were treated with primary repair, including resection and primary anastomosis, as were 88% of the penetrating TCI. Shock, transfusion requirement of more than 4 units, contamination, and associated injuries did not necessarily preclude primary repair. One of 16 patients (6%) who underwent primary repair developed morbidity related to the colon injury. The morbidity rate for the colostomy group was 13% (1 of 8). The mortality rate was 13% in the patients who experienced external trauma (3 of 24). Two of these deaths were related to severe head injury and chest injury, respectively. These data represent a much higher proportion of blunt injuries to the colon than is reported in the literature. The low rate of morbidity for all patients treated by primary repair tends to support the more liberal trend toward this technique for both blunt and penetrating TCI.     

结直肠损伤86例治疗分析

目的探讨结直肠损伤处理的经验。方法对 86例结、直肠损伤患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 86例结、直肠损伤均经手术治疗 ,并发其他脏器损伤 6 1例 ,一期单纯修补或切除吻合术占 88% (76 / 86 ) ,无肠瘘发生。二期肠造口或外置术占 1 2 %。死亡率为 1 0 % ,近 1 0年来已下降为 4 %。结直肠损伤的主要死亡原因为多发伤、出血性休克与严重感染。结论结、直肠损伤以钝性闭合伤为主 ,一期手术应为首选 ;二期手术仅适用于结肠重度损伤、腹腔重度污染、全身病情严重需行“损伤控制手术”和直肠中、下段损伤者     

Complications of primary repair of colon injury: literature review of 2,964 cases

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of primary repair of colon injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was made of 35 publications containing 5,400 colon injuries in retrospective and prospective studies. RESULTS: There were 62 (2.4%) failures in 2,627 primary repairs based on surgeon discretion or absence of risk factors. In prospective series of 337 patients repaired without exclusionary criteria, there were 4 (1.2%) suture line failures (P = not significant). In prospective randomized trials without exclusionary criteria, 127 primary repairs had less morbidity compared with 109 diverted patients (P <0.02). The leak rate after resection and anastomosis (5.5%) is greater than after simple suture of perforation (1.4%; P <0.001). The 66 colon repair leaks were treated by conversion to colostomy or led to fistulae that usually healed spontaneously. A preponderance of failed repairs occurred in the setting of multiple injuries or comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Penetrating and blunt colon injuries in civilian practice are safely managed by primary repair, but colostomy may still be advised in selected cases.     

Colon injuries in children

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Colonic injuries are rare in childhood, but when they do occur, they are mostly associated with penetrating abdominal injuries. The primary repair of colon injuries without stoma is still controversial within surgical experience, and the potential risk factors affecting morbidity and mortality is not sufficiently known. METHODS: Between 1985 and 1997, 34 children presenting with traumatic colonic perforations were reevaluated by analyzing the relationship between the overall morbidity and mortality and the potential risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 34 children in the case study, 27 boys and 7 girls, there were 7 (21%) isolated colonic injuries. The remaining 27 (79%) patients showed colonic injuries most frequently associated with the small bowel, the liver, and the bladder. Localization of injury was distributed thus: 21% in the right colon, 29% in the transverse colon, and 50% in the left colon. Primary repair, with or without intestinal resection, was performed in 27 (79%) of the patients. In total, postoperative complications occurred in 10 (29%) of the patients. Risk factors such as age, abdominal contamination, and associated abdominal organ injuries were found significant in these complications, however, the mechanism of injury, shock, blood transfusion, and localization of injury were not correlated significantly to postoperative complications. "'Flint's Colon Grading System" was used to ascertain the sensitivity of trauma scoring systems for postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Colonic wounds can be repaired primarily without the need of colostomy in the majority of cases in children when the required selections are established.     

The role of primary repair for colonic injuries in wartime

BACKGROUND: The study reviewed an experience of selective primary repair for penetrating colonic injuries incorporating a number of procedures during the 1992-1995 Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict. METHODS: Of 5370 casualties, 259 (4.8 per cent) had injuries to the colon. The patients were divided into two groups: those who had primary repair and those who needed a colostomy. The patients' records were reviewed to determine the cause of injury (explosive weapons or bullets), the position and type of colon injury, associated injuries, the surgical procedure(s) done, complications related to the colonic wound or its management, and mortality. RESULTS: Some 122 (47.1 per cent) patients had primary colonic repair and 137 (52.9 per cent) had a colostomy. One hundred and fifty (57.9 per cent) were injured by explosive weapons, 108 (41.7 per cent) had bullet wounds and one (0.4 per cent) a stab injury. Associated injuries were seen in 249 (96.1 per cent) patients. Complications related to the colonic wound or its management developed in 27 per cent of patients after primary repair and 30 per cent after colostomy. Mortality rates were 8.2 per cent and 7.2 per cent, respectively. CONCLUSION: Primary repair was a safe and effective treatment for penetrating colonic injuries during war.     

Penetrating colon injuries: exteriorized repair vs. loop colostomy

Eighty-five patients with penetrating colon injuries, treated either by exteriorized repair (39) or loop colostomy (46), were analyzed. Missile wounds accounted for 75.3% of the injuries. The Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index (PATI) was the scoring method employed to assess quantitatively the severity of injuries in each patient. Of 21 patients with right colon injuries, eight were treated by exteriorized repair and the remainder by loop colostomy. PATI and other variables were comparable in both groups. Suture line leaks occurred in two patients (25%) with exteriorized repair. The morbidity was similar in both groups. In left colon trauma, exteriorized repair was employed in 31 patients and 33 underwent loop colostomy. The injury severity indices, clinical status, and time lapse to laparotomy were similar in both groups. Colostomy was avoided in 67.7% (21 of 31) patients with exteriorized repair. The incidence of abscesses was significantly higher in the colostomy group compared to the group treated by exteriorized repair (24.2% and 6.4%, respectively; p less than 0.05). The length of hospital stay was shorter after exteriorized repair (17.2 days vs. 23.2 days; p less than 0.05). All three mortalities (3.5%) were related to associated injuries. We conclude that exteriorized repair is a safe and superior alternative to loop colostomy in penetrating colon trauma.     

Evaluation of three methods for managing penetrating colon injuries.

Although primary intraperitoneal repair of selected penetrating colon injuries is a feasible method of treatment, injudicious use of this method, especially in wounds of the right colon, led to increased morbidity, in the group of 90 patients studied. Colostomy may be avoided in selected patients by using primary repair with exteriorization of the injured segment. The technique described is a reliable compromise which protects the patient from the danger of intraperitoneal suture line disruption and possibly avoids the inconvenience and morbidity of formal colostomy. Since exteriorized primary repair has been a safe, effective method of managing gunshot wounds of the colon in selected patients, we advocate its increased use.     

Traditional treatment of colon injuries. An effective method

Several recent reports have described management of penetrating colon wounds with primary closure, exteriorization, and early return to the abdominal cavity. Since this procedure was not the technique practiced at our institution, we reviewed our five-year experience with 207 patients with such wounds to determine whether a change in methods was warranted. The patients, predominantly young and male, were often victims of gunshots or stabbings. Associated injuries (intra-abdominal, 64%; extra-abdominal, 35%) were frequent. Overall mortality was 4% and included three patients who died within 24 hours of admission. Morbidity was 43%, including 17% related to colon injury. All documented colostomy closures were without mortality. We concluded that management of penetrating colon injuries by traditional methods yields low morbidity and mortality. A comparison of our results with those obtained using alternative techniques convinced us that the continued use of traditional methods in treating colon trauma is warranted.     

Colonic resection in trauma: colostomy versus anastomosis

OBJECTIVES: The management of colonic trauma is well established for simple injuries with primary repair, and ileocolostomy for right-sided injuries that undergo colonic resection. Segmental colon resection for injuries to the left colon can be managed with either an end colostomy or primary anastomosis. A retrospective review was performed to evaluate the outcome and complications associated with colonic resection for trauma to determine the risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage. METHODS: A retrospective review included patients undergoing colonic resection for trauma. The patients were stratified into colostomy, ileocolostomy, and colocolostomy groups. Patient demographics and colon-related complications were collected. Comparison between the colostomy and colocolostomy groups was performed to determine the difference in outcome. The outcome of right-sided colon injuries managed by either an ileocolonic or colocolonic anastomosis was compared. Analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients over a 66-month period were included in the analysis. Overall, 41% (57 of 140) of patients developed a colon-related complication; 28% (39 of 140) of patients developed an abscess. Overall, the anastomotic leak rate was 13% (7 of 56) in the colocolostomy group, 4% (2 of 56) in the ileocolostomy group. Right-sided colon injuries managed with a colocolonic anastomosis had a higher incidence of anastomotic leakage than ileocolonic anastomosis, i.e., 14 versus 4% respectively. Of the seven patients who developed a leak from a colocolonic anastomosis, two patients died (29%). Univariate analysis identified an Abdominal Trauma Index Score > or = 25 (p = 0.03) or hypotension in the emergency department (p = 0.001) to be associated with increased risk of developing an anastomotic leak from a colocolonic anastomosis. CONCLUSION: Colonic injuries that are managed with resection are associated with a high complication rate regardless of whether an anastomosis or colostomy is performed. Colonic resection and anastomosis can be performed safely in the majority of patients with severe colonic injury, including injuries to the left colon. For injuries of the right colon, an ileocolostomy has a lower incidence of leakage than a colocolonic anastomosis. For injuries to the left colon, there remains a role for colostomy specifically in the subgroups of patients with a high ATI or hypotension, because these patients are at greater risk for an anastomotic leak. The role of resection and primary anastomosis versus colostomy in colonic trauma requires further investigation.     

Management of penetrating colon trauma: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management of penetrating colon injuries in the presence of multiple associated risk factors is controversial. Issues not considered in previous management strategies are patient perception of quality of life with a colostomy and the true cost of each therapeutic option, which includes colostomy supplies and costs of colostomy takedown. To evaluate these issues, we performed a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree with 3 options: primary repair, resection and anastomosis, and colostomy. Chance and decision nodes on each decision branch represent injury severity, complications, colostomy takedown, and death. Chance node frequencies and utility assignments were taken from published data. We obtained actual costs for all components of perioperative care. The outcomes reported are cost and quality of life. RESULTS: Colostomy has the least quality of life and the greatest cost. Primary repair and resection each dominate colostomy in the baseline analysis. No variable significantly altered these conclusions in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Simple suture or resection and anastomosis at the time of initial exploration is the dominant management method for penetrating colon trauma. It also demonstrates the trade-off between cost and life expectancy of the 3 management options.     

A contemporary prospective review of 205 consecutive patients with penetrating colon injuries

BackgroundManagement of colon injuries has significantly evolved in the recent decades resulting in considerably decreased morbidity and mortality. We set out to investigate penetrating colon injuries in a high-volume urban academic trauma center in South Africa.MethodsAll patients with penetrating colon injuries admitted between 1/2015 and 1/2018 were prospectively enrolled. Data collection included demographics, injury profile and outcomes. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome was morbidity.ResultsTwo-hundred and five patients were included in the analysis. Stab and gunshot wounds constituted 18% and 82% of the cases, respectively. Mean age was 28.9 (10.2) years and 96.1% were male. Median injury severity score (ISS) and penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI) were 16 (9-25) and 19 (10-26), respectively. A total of 47.8% of the patients had a complication per Clavien-Dindo classification. Colon leak rate was 2.4%. Wound and abdominal organ/space infection rate was 15.1 and 6.3%, respectively. Overall in-hospital mortality was 9.3%. Risk factors for mortality were higher ISS and PATI, shock on admission, need for blood transfusion, intra-abdominal vascular injury, damage control surgery, and extra-abdominal severe injuries.ConclusionsContemporary overall complication rate remains high in penetrating colon injuries, however, anastomotic leak rate is decreasing. Colon injury associated mortality is related to overall injury burden and hemorrhage rather than to colon injuries.     

Penetrating right colon trauma. The ever diminishing role for colostomy

Ninety consecutive patients with penetrating trauma to the right colon were analyzed. The severity of injury to the colon and other abdominal organs was quantified in each patient by the Colon Injury Score (CIS) and the Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index (PATI). Sixty-five patients (72%) were managed definitively, i.e., by primary repair (46 patients) and by resection-ileocolic anastomosis (19 patients). There was no morbidity related to the colonic repair in these patients. Exteriorized repair was used selectively in eight patients and was successful in six (75%). Thirteen patients underwent loop colostomy and the mean CIS and PATI in this group were comparable to those in primary repair and exteriorized repair groups. Resection colostomy was performed in four patients with extensive colon and associated organ trauma (high CIS, PATI). The overall incidence of intra-abdominal abscess was 2.2 per cent (2 of 90 patients). The mortality was 4.4 per cent (4 of 90 patients) and none of the deaths was related to the management of the colon trauma. It is concluded that the majority of patients with penetrating right colon trauma can be treated effectively by primary repair or resection anastomosis. Exteriorized repair should be the preferred method whenever loop colostomy is considered. Colostomy should be used selectively in unstable patients who require colon resection.     

Comparison of penetrating injuries of the right and left colon.

Controversy still exists whether penetrating injuries of the right colon have more favorably than those to the left. The importance of the issue rests in the operative management. This is a review of 50 cases of penetrating injuries of the right colon and 55 of the left treated at our institution from 1975 to 1980. The two patient groups were similar with respect to mechanism of injury, presence of shock at admission, degree of fecal contamination, severity of injury, and the percentage of cases with associated intra-abdominal injuries. The number of patients managed by primary repair or resection (52 vs. 45%), repair or resection with exteriorization (20 vs. 22%), and colostomy (28 vs. 33%) were also comparable in right versus left injuries. The treatment of right colon injuries resulted in 32% morbidity rate and 2% mortality rate, and that of left sided injuries 33% morbidity and rate of 4% mortality rate. These findings indicate that, despite known anatomic and physiologic differences, penetrating trauma to the right and left colon should be managed similarly.     

Primary repair of the colon: when is it a safe alternative?

Management of civilian colon injuries has clearly departed from the military directive advocating mandatory colostomy. The treatment of 228 colon injuries at the Denver General Hospital was reviewed to elucidate risk factors for colon-related complications and quantify the morbidity of available surgical treatment options. In our population, 68% of patients sustained gunshot wounds with a high percentage of severe colon injuries and associated abdominal organ damage. Primary repair was accomplished in 49% with 17% septic morbidity and 1% septic mortality rates. Colostomy was required in 36% with a cumulative septic morbidity of 48% and 2% septic mortality. The most common complications were abdominal abscess (12%), wound infection (7%), and fecal fistula (4%). Analysis of risk factors for colon-related morbidity showed that the Abdominal Trauma Index (ATI), colon injury severity, preoperative shock, and peritoneal contamination were most important. Synthesis of the treatment outcome and risk factor data yields a proposed management scheme for colon injuries that is based on the patient's hemodynamic status, colon injury severity, and ATI scores. Primary repair by either debridement and simple closure or resection with primary anastomosis is advocated for colon injuries in patients who are hemodynamically stable with an ATI score less than 25.     

The injured colon.

Controversy continues regarding the initial management of civilian colon injuries. The main issues are the safety of colostomy versus the desirability of primary repair and the role of exteriorized repair. From 1979 through 1984, 727 patients with injuries to the colon were treated at a large urban trauma center. Ninety-seven per cent of injuries were caused by penetrating wounds. Ten patients died in the operating room prior to repair of the colon wound. For patients who survived long enough to have their injury treated, 52.4% were treated by primary repair, 32.9% were treated with colostomies, and 14.6% were treated with exteriorized repair. Of the factors that have been stated to influence decision making, the extent of the colon injury was the most important. Location, number, and type of associated injuries, fecal contamination, and shock were less important. However, none of these latter factors mandated performance of a colostomy. The overall mortality rate for the series was 9.9%. Forty-one out of 70 deaths occurred within the first 48 hours and were due to shock and hemorrhage. The mortality rate for primary repair was significantly lower than that for colostomies (p less than 0.01). The presence of shock and age greater than 40 were significant factors influencing mortality (p less than 0.01). Mortality also was directly related to the number and type of associated abdominal injuries. Abdominal abscess also occurred significantly less often in patients treated with primary repair than in those with colostomies (p less than 0.01). The use of exteriorized repair was successful in avoiding colostomy in 59% of patients. Primary repair can be performed with minimal morbidity and mortality and should be the mainstay of treatment for civilian colon injuries.