OBJECTIVE: Penetrating colonic injuries are amongst the most discussed intra-abdominal injuries because of the complexity of their management and the severe complications. Penetrating colonic injuries can be managed by either primary repair or diversion. There is a debate over which procedure has to be used under which circumstances. In this retrospective study we analyzed our experience to contribute to the answer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of patients with penetrating colonic injury between January 1995 and December 2006 at the General Surgery Department of Atatürk University School of Medicine, were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one patients were included in the study. Ten patients did not need any surgical treatment. Seventy-nine patients (56%) were treated without formation of a stoma and fifty-two patients (36.8%) with formation of a stoma. The overall complication rate was 50.3% (71 patients). The rate of septic complications was 33.3%. CONCLUSION: There is an ongoing debate whether formation of a stoma is indicated in penetrating colonic injury or not. Our clinical experience showed that severe faecal contamination, shock at presentation, and high CIS grades are associated with increased postoperative complications and mortality. Therefore the treatment of penetrating colonic injury in the presence of these risk factors should be stoma formation rather than primary repair.
OBJECTIVE: Penetrating colonic injuries are amongst the most discussed intra-abdominal injuries because of the complexity of their management and the severe complications. Penetrating colonic injuries can be managed by either primary repair or diversion. There is a debate over which procedure has to be used under which circumstances. In this retrospective study we analyzed our experience to contribute to the answer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of patients with penetrating colonic injury between January 1995 and December 2006 at the General Surgery Department of Atatürk University School of Medicine, were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one patients were included in the study. Ten patients did not need any surgical treatment. Seventy-nine patients (56%) were treated without formation of a stoma and fifty-two patients (36.8%) with formation of a stoma. The overall complication rate was 50.3% (71 patients). The rate of septic complications was 33.3%. CONCLUSION: There is an ongoing debate whether formation of a stoma is indicated in penetrating colonic injury or not. Our clinical experience showed that severe faecal contamination, shock at presentation, and high CIS grades are associated with increased postoperative complications and mortality. Therefore the treatment of penetrating colonic injury in the presence of these risk factors should be stoma formation rather than primary repair.