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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Nelson R, Singer M. Primary repair for penetrating colon injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(3):CD002247.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0783-5