TY - JOUR
T1 - Contemporary management of rectal injuries at Level i trauma centers
T2 - The results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study
AU - Brown, Carlos V.R.
AU - Teixeira, Pedro G.
AU - Furay, Elisa
AU - Sharpe, John P.
AU - Musonza, Tashinga
AU - Holcomb, John
AU - Bui, Eric
AU - Bruns, Brandon
AU - Hopper, H. Andrew
AU - Truitt, Michael S.
AU - Burlew, Clay C.
AU - Schellenberg, Morgan
AU - Sava, Jack
AU - Vanhorn, John
AU - Eastridge, P. C.Brian
AU - Cross, Alicia M.
AU - Vasak, Richard
AU - Vercruysse, Gary
AU - Curtis, Eleanor E.
AU - Haan, James
AU - Coimbra, Raul
AU - Bohan, Phillip
AU - Gale, Stephen
AU - Bendix, Peter G.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/2/1
Y1 - 2018/2/1
N2 - INTRODUCTION Rectal injuries have been historically treated with a combination of modalities including direct repair, resection, proximal diversion, presacral drainage, and distal rectal washout. We hypothesized that intraperitoneal rectal injuries may be selectively managed without diversion and the addition of distal rectal washout and presacral drainage in the management of extraperitoneal injuries are not beneficial. METHODS This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 of all patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury and were admitted to one of the 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, location and grade of injury, and management of rectal injury were collected. The primary outcome was abdominal complications (abdominal abscess, pelvic abscess, and fascial dehiscence). RESULTS After exclusions, there were 785 patients in the cohort. Rectal injuries were intraperitoneal in 32%, extraperitoneal in 58%, both in 9%, and not documented in 1%. Rectal injury severity included the following grades I, 28%; II, 41%; III, 13%; IV, 12%; and V, 5%. Patients with intraperitoneal injury managed with a proximal diversion developed more abdominal complications (22% vs 10%, p = 0.003). Among patients with extraperitoneal injuries, there were more abdominal complications in patients who received proximal diversion (p = 0.0002), presacral drain (p = 0.004), or distal rectal washout (p = 0.002). After multivariate analysis, distal rectal washout [3.4 (1.4-8.5), p = 0.008] and presacral drain [2.6 (1.1-6.1), p = 0.02] were independent risk factors to develop abdominal complications. CONCLUSION Most patients with intraperitoneal injuries undergo direct repair or resection as well as diversion, although diversion is not associated with improved outcomes. While 20% of patients with extraperitoneal injuries still receive a presacral drain and/or distal rectal washout, these additional maneuvers are independently associated with a three-fold increase in abdominal complications and should not be included in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level III.
AB - INTRODUCTION Rectal injuries have been historically treated with a combination of modalities including direct repair, resection, proximal diversion, presacral drainage, and distal rectal washout. We hypothesized that intraperitoneal rectal injuries may be selectively managed without diversion and the addition of distal rectal washout and presacral drainage in the management of extraperitoneal injuries are not beneficial. METHODS This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 of all patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury and were admitted to one of the 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, location and grade of injury, and management of rectal injury were collected. The primary outcome was abdominal complications (abdominal abscess, pelvic abscess, and fascial dehiscence). RESULTS After exclusions, there were 785 patients in the cohort. Rectal injuries were intraperitoneal in 32%, extraperitoneal in 58%, both in 9%, and not documented in 1%. Rectal injury severity included the following grades I, 28%; II, 41%; III, 13%; IV, 12%; and V, 5%. Patients with intraperitoneal injury managed with a proximal diversion developed more abdominal complications (22% vs 10%, p = 0.003). Among patients with extraperitoneal injuries, there were more abdominal complications in patients who received proximal diversion (p = 0.0002), presacral drain (p = 0.004), or distal rectal washout (p = 0.002). After multivariate analysis, distal rectal washout [3.4 (1.4-8.5), p = 0.008] and presacral drain [2.6 (1.1-6.1), p = 0.02] were independent risk factors to develop abdominal complications. CONCLUSION Most patients with intraperitoneal injuries undergo direct repair or resection as well as diversion, although diversion is not associated with improved outcomes. While 20% of patients with extraperitoneal injuries still receive a presacral drain and/or distal rectal washout, these additional maneuvers are independently associated with a three-fold increase in abdominal complications and should not be included in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level III.
KW - Rectal trauma
KW - colostomy
KW - presacral drain
KW - rectal washout
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041591742&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041591742&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/TA.0000000000001739
DO - 10.1097/TA.0000000000001739
M3 - Article
C2 - 29140953
AN - SCOPUS:85041591742
SN - 2163-0755
VL - 84
SP - 225
EP - 233
JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
IS - 2
ER -