BACKGROUND: Although colon wounds are commonly treated in the setting of damage control laparotomy (DCL), a paucity of data exist to guide management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our experience with the management of colonic wounds in the context of DCL, using colonic wound outcomes after routine, single laparotomy (SL) as a benchmark. METHODS: Consecutive patients during a 7-year period with full-thickness or devitalizing colon injury were identified. Early deaths (<48 hour) were excluded. Colon-related complications (abscess, suture or staple leak, and stomal ischemia) were compared between those managed in the setting of DCL versus those managed by SL, both overall and as stratified by procedure (primary repair, resection and anastomosis, and resection and colostomy). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven patients met study criteria: 101 had undergone SL and 56 had undergone DCL. Comparison of DCL patients with SL patients was notable for a significant difference in colon-related complications (30% vs. 12%, p < 0.005) and suture/staple leak in particular (12% vs. 3%, p < 0.05). Stratification by procedure revealed a significant difference in colon-related complications among those that underwent resection and anastomosis (DCL: 39% vs. SL: 18%, p < 0.05), whereas no differences were observed in those who underwent primary repair or resection and colostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Management of colonic wounds in the setting of DCL is associated with a relatively high incidence of complications. The excessive incidence of leak overall and morbidity particular to resection and anastomosis, however, give us pause. Although stoma construction is not without its own complications in the setting of DCL, it may be the safer alternative.
BACKGROUND: Although colon wounds are commonly treated in the setting of damage control laparotomy (DCL), a paucity of data exist to guide management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our experience with the management of colonic wounds in the context of DCL, using colonic wound outcomes after routine, single laparotomy (SL) as a benchmark. METHODS: Consecutive patients during a 7-year period with full-thickness or devitalizing colon injury were identified. Early deaths (<48 hour) were excluded. Colon-related complications (abscess, suture or staple leak, and stomal ischemia) were compared between those managed in the setting of DCL versus those managed by SL, both overall and as stratified by procedure (primary repair, resection and anastomosis, and resection and colostomy). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven patients met study criteria: 101 had undergone SL and 56 had undergone DCL. Comparison of DCLpatients with SL patients was notable for a significant difference in colon-related complications (30% vs. 12%, p < 0.005) and suture/staple leak in particular (12% vs. 3%, p < 0.05). Stratification by procedure revealed a significant difference in colon-related complications among those that underwent resection and anastomosis (DCL: 39% vs. SL: 18%, p < 0.05), whereas no differences were observed in those who underwent primary repair or resection and colostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Management of colonic wounds in the setting of DCL is associated with a relatively high incidence of complications. The excessive incidence of leak overall and morbidity particular to resection and anastomosis, however, give us pause. Although stoma construction is not without its own complications in the setting of DCL, it may be the safer alternative.
Authors: Carlos A Ordoñez; Luis F Pino; Marisol Badiel; Alvaro I Sánchez; Jhon Loaiza; Leonardo Ballestas; Juan Carlos Puyana Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-12
Authors: Patrick Georgoff; Paul Perales; Benjamin Laguna; Daniel Holena; Patrick Reilly; Carrie Sims Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Massimo Sartelli; Federico Coccolini; Yoram Kluger; Ervis Agastra; Fikri M Abu-Zidan; Ashraf El Sayed Abbas; Luca Ansaloni; Abdulrashid Kayode Adesunkanmi; Boyko Atanasov; Goran Augustin; Miklosh Bala; Oussama Baraket; Suman Baral; Walter L Biffl; Marja A Boermeester; Marco Ceresoli; Elisabetta Cerutti; Osvaldo Chiara; Enrico Cicuttin; Massimo Chiarugi; Raul Coimbra; Elif Colak; Daniela Corsi; Francesco Cortese; Yunfeng Cui; Dimitris Damaskos; Nicola De' Angelis; Samir Delibegovic; Zaza Demetrashvili; Belinda De Simone; Stijn W de Jonge; Sameer Dhingra; Stefano Di Bella; Francesco Di Marzo; Salomone Di Saverio; Agron Dogjani; Therese M Duane; Mushira Abdulaziz Enani; Paola Fugazzola; Joseph M Galante; Mahir Gachabayov; Wagih Ghnnam; George Gkiokas; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Ewen A Griffiths; Timothy C Hardcastle; Andreas Hecker; Torsten Herzog; Syed Mohammad Umar Kabir; Aleksandar Karamarkovic; Vladimir Khokha; Peter K Kim; Jae Il Kim; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Victor Kong; Renol M Koshy; Igor A Kryvoruchko; Kenji Inaba; Arda Isik; Katia Iskandar; Rao Ivatury; Francesco M Labricciosa; Yeong Yeh Lee; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrey Litvin; Davide Luppi; Gustavo M Machain; Ronald V Maier; Athanasios Marinis; Cristina Marmorale; Sanjay Marwah; Cristian Mesina; Ernest E Moore; Frederick A Moore; Ionut Negoi; Iyiade Olaoye; Carlos A Ordoñez; Mouaqit Ouadii; Andrew B Peitzman; Gennaro Perrone; Manos Pikoulis; Tadeja Pintar; Giuseppe Pipitone; Mauro Podda; Kemal Raşa; Julival Ribeiro; Gabriel Rodrigues; Ines Rubio-Perez; Ibrahima Sall; Norio Sato; Robert G Sawyer; Helmut Segovia Lohse; Gabriele Sganga; Vishal G Shelat; Ian Stephens; Michael Sugrue; Antonio Tarasconi; Joel Noutakdie Tochie; Matti Tolonen; Gia Tomadze; Jan Ulrych; Andras Vereczkei; Bruno Viaggi; Chiara Gurioli; Claudio Casella; Leonardo Pagani; Gian Luca Baiocchi; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-09-25 Impact factor: 5.469
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