PURPOSE: Primary repair of penetrating colon injuries is an appealing management option; however, uncertainty about its safety persists. This study was conducted to compare the morbidity and mortality of primary repair with fecal diversion in the management of penetrating colon injuries by use of a meta-analysis of randomized, prospective trials. METHODS: We searched for prospective, randomized trials in MEDLINE (1966 to November 2001), the Cochrane Library, and EMBase using the terms colon, penetrating, injury, colostomy, prospective, and randomized. Studies were included if they were randomized, controlled trials that compared the outcomes of primary repair with fecal diversion in the management of penetrating colon injuries. Five studies were included. Reviewers performed data extraction independently. Outcomes evaluated from each trial included mortality, total complications, infectious complications, intra-abdominal infections, wound complications, penetrating abdominal trauma index, and length of stay. Peto odds ratios for combined effect were calculated with a 95 percent confidence interval for each outcome. Heterogeneity was also assessed for each outcome. RESULTS: The penetrating abdominal trauma index of included subjects did not differ significantly between studies. Mortality was not significantly different between groups (odds ratio, 1.70; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.51-5.66). However, total complications (odds ratio, 0.28; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.18-0.42), total infectious complications (odds ratio, 0.41; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.27-0.63), abdominal infections including dehiscence (odds ratio, 0.59; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.38-0.94), abdominal infections excluding dehiscence (odds ratio, 0.52; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.31-0.86), wound complications including dehiscence (odds ratio, 0.55; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.34-0.89), and wound complications excluding dehiscence (odds ratio, 0.43; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.25-0.76) all significantly favored primary repair. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of currently published randomized, controlled trials favors primary repair over fecal diversion for penetrating colon injuries.
PURPOSE: Primary repair of penetrating colon injuries is an appealing management option; however, uncertainty about its safety persists. This study was conducted to compare the morbidity and mortality of primary repair with fecal diversion in the management of penetrating colon injuries by use of a meta-analysis of randomized, prospective trials. METHODS: We searched for prospective, randomized trials in MEDLINE (1966 to November 2001), the Cochrane Library, and EMBase using the terms colon, penetrating, injury, colostomy, prospective, and randomized. Studies were included if they were randomized, controlled trials that compared the outcomes of primary repair with fecal diversion in the management of penetrating colon injuries. Five studies were included. Reviewers performed data extraction independently. Outcomes evaluated from each trial included mortality, total complications, infectious complications, intra-abdominal infections, wound complications, penetrating abdominal trauma index, and length of stay. Peto odds ratios for combined effect were calculated with a 95 percent confidence interval for each outcome. Heterogeneity was also assessed for each outcome. RESULTS: The penetrating abdominal trauma index of included subjects did not differ significantly between studies. Mortality was not significantly different between groups (odds ratio, 1.70; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.51-5.66). However, total complications (odds ratio, 0.28; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.18-0.42), total infectious complications (odds ratio, 0.41; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.27-0.63), abdominal infections including dehiscence (odds ratio, 0.59; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.38-0.94), abdominal infections excluding dehiscence (odds ratio, 0.52; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.31-0.86), wound complications including dehiscence (odds ratio, 0.55; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.34-0.89), and wound complications excluding dehiscence (odds ratio, 0.43; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.25-0.76) all significantly favored primary repair. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of currently published randomized, controlled trials favors primary repair over fecal diversion for penetrating colon injuries.
Authors: David Czeiger; Anton Osyntsov; Lidia Osyntsov; Chad G Ball; Roy Gigi; Gad Shaked Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 5.469