Abstract
PURPOSE: An analysis of the existing literature on primary repair of colon injuries was undertaken to determine if there is sufficient evidence that this approach is superior to fecal diversion. METHODS: After a thorough literature search, three prospectively randomized studies comparing primary repair with fecal diversion in the management of colon injuries were identified. A variety of factors were examined, including the number of patients in each study arm, morbidity rates, as well as exclusion criteria. An analysis was performed to determine the number of patients required to establish statistical superiority of one procedure over the other. RESULTS: Pooling of the data contained in the aforementioned reports does not provide sufficient statistical power to support the superiority of primary repair of colon injuries. To demonstrate a 5 percent difference between the two approaches, a prospective, randomized study consisting of 200 patients in each arm is necessary. CONCLUSION: The present literature does not support a statistically valid advantage of primary repair over fecal diversion in the management of traumatic colon injuries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Shannon FL, Moore EE. Primary repair of the colon: when is it a safe alternative? Surgery 1985;98:851–7.
Osray CP, Merlotti G, Abcarian H, Pearl RK, Nanda M, Barrett J. Colorectal trauma. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:188–90.
Ridgeway CA, Frame SB, Rice JC, Timberlake GA, Mc-Swain NE Jr, Kerstein MD. Primary repairvs. colostomy for the treatment of penetrating colon injuries. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:1046–9.
Ivatury RR, Gaudino J, Nallathambi MN, Stahl WM. Definitive treatment of colon injuries: a prospective study. Am Surg 1993;59:43–9
Flint LM, Vitale GC, Richardson JD. The injured colon: relationships of managements to complications. Ann Surg 1981;193:619–22.
Ogilvie WH, Abdominal wounds in the Western desert. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1944;78:225–38.
George SM, Fabian TC, Voellar GR,et al. Primary repair of colon wounds: a prospective trial in nonselected patients. Ann Surg 1989;209:728–32.
Adkins RB, Zirkle PK, Waterhouse G. Penetrating colon trauma. J Trauma 1984;24:491–9.
Office of the Surgeon General. Circulation Letter No. 178. October 18, 1943.
Melken N, Lewis F. The influence of injury severity on complication rates after primary closure or colostomy for penetrating colon trauma. Ann Surg 1989;209:439–42.
Woodhall JP, Ochsner A. The management of perforating injuries of the colon and rectum in civilian practice. Surgery 1951;29:305–20.
Burch JM, Martin RR, Richardson RJ,et al. Evolution of the injured colon in the 1980's. Arch Surg 1991;126:979–82.
Chappuis CS, Frey DJ, Dietzen CD,et al. Management of penetrating colon injuries: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 1991;213:492–4.
Falcone RE, Wanamaker SR, Santanello SA, Carey LC. Colorectal trauma: primary repair or anastomosis with intracolonic bypassvs. ostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:957–63.
Stone HH, Fabian TC. Colon trauma: further support for primary repair. Am J Surg 1979;190:430–3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Ryan, M., Dutta, S., Masri, L. et al. Fecal diversion for penetrating colon injuries—Still the established treatment. Dis Colon Rectum 38, 264–267 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055599
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055599