Skip to main content
Log in

Colonic Trauma: Indications for Diversion vs. Repair

  • 2008 ssat other
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract

Introduction

The management of colonic trauma has evolved considerably over the past several decades. An appreciation of best-evidence practices is paramount to the optimal management of these injuries.

Materials and Methods

Literature review of pertinent clinical literature regarding the management of colonic trauma was performed.

Results

Based on available level I evidence, primary repair of all colorectal injuries should be attempted, irrespective of associated risk factors. Diversion should only be considered if the colonic tissue itself is deemed inappropriate for repair, as in the setting of prohibitive edema or questionable perfusion of the tissues. Diversion does remain the standard of care for the management of extra-peritoneal rectal injuries, although this practice is under active investigation.

Conclusion

Level 1 evidence has failed to demonstrate that routine proximal diversion, once considered the standard of care for the treatment of all colorectal trauma, affords benefit for victims of the injuries. While utilization of these practices may prove beneficial in select circumstances, the routine utilization of proximal diversion for the treatment of colorectal injuries is unwarranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Demetriades D, Murray JA, Chan L, et al. Penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: Diversion or primary anastomosis? an AAST prospective multicenter study. J Trauma 2001;50:765–775. doi:10.1097/00005373-200105000-00001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nelson R, Singer M. Primary repair for penetrating colon injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(3):CD002247.

  3. Berne JD, Velmahos GC, Chan LS, Asensio JA, Demetriades D. The high morbidity of colostomy closure after trauma: Further support for the primary repair of colon injuries. Surgery 1998;123:157–164.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gonzalez RP, Falimirski ME, Holevar MR. The role of presacral drainage in the management of penetrating rectal injuries. J Trauma 1998;45:656–661. doi:10.1097/00005373-199810000-00002.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gonzalez RP, Phelan H 3rd, Hassan M, Ellis CN, Rodning CB. Is fecal diversion necessary for nondestructive penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries? J Trauma 2006;61:815–819. doi:10.1097/01.ta.0000239497.96387.9d.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joe DuBose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DuBose, J. Colonic Trauma: Indications for Diversion vs. Repair. J Gastrointest Surg 13, 403–404 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0783-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0783-5

Keywords

Navigation