Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Over the years, there has been a shift towards more conservative treatment, with primary repair of colonic injuries being preferred over faecal diversion. We present a cohort study of the management of penetrating colon injury over the past 10 years from a major trauma hospital in western Sydney. We aim to evaluate the trend of operative management of penetrating colonic injuries.

Methods

Patients were identified via the prospectively collected trauma registry at Westmead Hospital from 2003 to 2013. Fifty-seven patients initially identified with a proven diagnosis of penetrating colonic injury had their medical records reviewed. Excluded in the study are patients who had rectal injuries or serosal tears of the colon. Patient characteristics, mechanisms of injury, treatment course and complications were analysed. Extent of colonic injury was graded of using American Association for the Surgery of Trauma scalings.

Results

A total of 55 patients were then included in the study. Primary repair of colon injuries was the most common method used (63.6%, n = 35) followed by resection and primary anastomosis (21.8% n = 12), diverting colostomy (14.3%, n = 5) and non-operative management (5.5%, n = 3). There was a higher rate of diversion in the earlier time period (2003–2007) when compared to the later time period (2008–2013), p = 0.03. Over the 10-year period, there was no significant difference with regards to complications among groups, particularly intra-abdominal complications.

Conclusion

From 2003 to 2013, there is a shift of management of penetrating colonic injuries from diversion to resection and primary anastomosis to that of primary repair. Primary repair of colonic injuries is a safe option and is associated with low morbidity. It should be considered as a valid tool in the armamentarium of today’s surgeon.

Keywords

Colon trauma ostomy resection penetrating

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Miller

Fabian

Croce

et al.

Improving outcomes following penetrating colon wounds: application of a clinical pathway. Ann Surg 2002; 235: 775–781.

Stone

Fabian

. Management of perforating colon trauma: randomization between primary closure and exteriorization. Ann Surg 1979; 190: 430–436.

Pachter

Hoballah

Corcoran

et al.

The morbidity and financial impact of colostomy closure in trauma patients. J Trauma 1990; 30: 1510–1513.

Orsay

Merlotti

Abcarian

et al.

Colorectal trauma. Dis Colon Rectum 1989; 32: 188–190.

Greer

Gillern

Vertrees

. Evolving colon injury management: a review. Am Surg 2013; 79: 119–127.

Nelken

Lewis

. The influence of injury severity on complication rates after primary closure or colostomy for penetrating colon trauma. Ann Surg 1989; 209: 439–447.

Chappuis

Frey

Dietzen

et al.

Management of penetrating colon injuries. A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 1991; 213: 492–497. discussion 7–8.

Nelson

Singer

. Primary repair for penetrating colon injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003. 3: CD002247.

George

Jr Fabian

Voeller

et al.

Primary repair of colon wounds. A prospective trial in nonselected patients. Ann Surg 1989; 209: 728–733. 33–34.

10.

Sasaki

Allaben

Golwala

et al.

Primary repair of colon injuries: a prospective randomized study. J Trauma 1995; 39: 895–901.

11.

Miller

Chang

Hoth

et al.

Colonic resection in the setting of damage control laparotomy: is delayed anastomosis safe?

Am Surg 2007; 73: 606–609. discussion 9–10.

12.

Barwick

Schoffstall

. Routine exteriorization in the treatment of civilian colon injuries: a reappraisal. Am Surg 1978; 44: 716–722.

13.

Demetriades

Murray

Chan

et al.

Penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: diversion or primary anastomosis? An AAST prospective multicenter study. J Trauma 2001; 50: 765–775.

14.

Salinas-Aragon

Guevara-Torres

Vaca-Perez

et al.

Primary closure in colon trauma. Cir Cir 2009; 77: 359–364.

15.

Cho

. Management of colonic injuries in the combat theatre. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 728–734.

16.

Moore

Dunn

Moore

et al.

Penetrating abdominal trauma index. J Trauma 1981; 21: 439–445.

17.

Chanson

Nassiopoulos

Kiesler

et al.

[Trauma to the colon in civilian surgery]. Swiss Surg 1998, pp. 244–248.

18.

Watson

Aden

Engel

et al.

Risk factors for colostomy in military colorectal trauma: a review of 867 patients. Surgery 2014; 155: 1052–1061.

19.

Luchette

Borzotta

Croce

et al.

Practice management guidelines for prophylactic antibiotic use in penetrating abdominal trauma: the EAST Practice Management Guidelines Work Group. J Trauma 2000; 48: 508–518.

20.

Morris

Sugrue

. Abdominal injuries in the war wounded of Afghanistan: a report from the International Committee of the Red Cross Hospital in Kabul. Br J Surg 1991; 78: 1301–1304.

21.

Shannon

Moore

. Primary repair of the colon: when is it a safe alternative? Surgery 1985; 98: 851–860.

22.

Frame

Ridgeway

Rice

et al.

Penetrating injuries to the colon: analysis by anatomic region of injury. South Med J 1989; 82: 1099–1102.

23.

Strada

Raad

Belloni

et al.

Large bowel perforations in war surgery: one-stage treatment in a field hospital. Int J Colorectal Dis 1993; 8: 213–216.

24.

Pasquale

Fabian

. Practice management guidelines for trauma from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma 1998; 44: 941–956. discussion 56–57.

25.

Mickevicius

Klizaite

Tamelis

et al.

[Penetrating colorectal trauma: index of severity and results of treatment]. Medicina (Kaunas) 2003; 39: 562–569.

26.

Williams

Watts

Fakhry

. Colon injury after blunt abdominal trauma: results of the EAST Multi-Institutional Hollow Viscus Injury Study. J Trauma 2003; 55: 906–912.

Traumatic colonic injuries in Westmead Hospital – A paradigm shift in management over 10 years

Abstract

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References