• J K Conrad, K M Ferry, M L Foreman, B M Gogel, T L Fisher, and S A Livingston.
• Department of Surgery, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75246, USA.
• Dis. Colon Rectum. 2000 Apr 1;43(4):466-71.

PurposeRecent prospective studies have recommended primary repair for all penetrating colon injuries. We evaluated our management trends given these recommendations and assessed our results of primary repair.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted of 145 patients with penetrating colon injuries received between January 1, 1991, and December 31, 1997. The patients were characterized according to demographics and severity of injury. Morbidity was defined as failure of a primary repair, abscess, fistula, wound dehiscence, fasciitis, sepsis, organ failure, or coagulopathy. The periods 1991 to 1993 (early period) and 1994 to 1997 (late period) were chosen for comparison.ResultsPrimary repairs were performed in 53 of 75 patients (71 percent) during the early period and in 61 of 70 patients (87 percent) during the late period (P = 0.03). No significant differences in demographics or injury severity were found to account for the increased rate of primary repairs. The number of suture repairs was nearly equal in both periods (59 vs. 61 percent). The number of resections and anastomoses for destructive colon injuries was significantly higher in the late period (26 percent) compared with the early period (12 percent; P = 0.05). Morbidity was equal (24 percent) in the two periods. There were no failures of resections and anastomoses and one failure of suture repair.ConclusionsIncreased primary repair occurred because of more liberal use of resection and anastomosis for destructive injuries. Suture repair was performed for the amenable colonic injury throughout the study period. Risk factors for failure of resection and anastomosis cannot be defined from our study. Further investigation is needed to determine if resection and anastomosis is safe for the most severely injured patients.

22 keywords...

hide…