Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 11/2018

01-11-2018 | Editorial

Management of some extra-peritoneal rectal injuries without fecal diversion may be feasible, but high-quality evidence is still needed

Author: R. W. Schroll

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 11/2018

Login to get access

Excerpt

Although relatively rare, traumatic rectal injuries have long been known to have high morbidity and mortality rates, with infectious complications reported up to 19% and mortality rates of up to 11% [1, 2]. Because of the serious nature of these injuries, it is important to attempt to understand and define optimal management strategies. Evidence-based consensus has been difficult to achieve, partially due to the complicated nature of injury location that may affect diagnosis, management, and outcomes—intra-peritoneal vs extra-peritoneal vs combined—and the complex options that have been advocated as management strategies over the years, including resection vs primary repair, plus/minus diverting stoma formation, plus/minus distal rectal irrigation, and for extra-peritoneal injuries, plus/minus pre-sacral drainage. In addition, due to the rarity of their occurrence, most previous studies have been limited to small, single-center, retrospective reviews. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ahern DP, Kelly ME, Courtney D, Rausa E, Winter DC (2017) The management of penetrating rectal and anal trauma: a systematic review. Injury 48(6):1133–1138CrossRef Ahern DP, Kelly ME, Courtney D, Rausa E, Winter DC (2017) The management of penetrating rectal and anal trauma: a systematic review. Injury 48(6):1133–1138CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Borsarge PL, Como JJ, Fox N, Falck-Ytter Y, Haut ER, Dorion HA, Patel NJ, Rushing A, Raff LA, McDonald AA, Robinson BR, McGwin G Jr, Gonzalez RP (2016) Management of penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 80(3):546–551CrossRef Borsarge PL, Como JJ, Fox N, Falck-Ytter Y, Haut ER, Dorion HA, Patel NJ, Rushing A, Raff LA, McDonald AA, Robinson BR, McGwin G Jr, Gonzalez RP (2016) Management of penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 80(3):546–551CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gonzalez RP, Phelan H, Hassan M, Ellis CN, Rodning CB (2006) Is fecal diversion necessary for nondestructive penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries? J Trauma 61(4):815–819CrossRef Gonzalez RP, Phelan H, Hassan M, Ellis CN, Rodning CB (2006) Is fecal diversion necessary for nondestructive penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries? J Trauma 61(4):815–819CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Levine JH, Longo WE, Pruitt C, Mazuski JE, Shapiro MJ, Durham RM (1996) Management of selected rectal injuries by primary repair. Am J Surg 172(5):575–578CrossRef Levine JH, Longo WE, Pruitt C, Mazuski JE, Shapiro MJ, Durham RM (1996) Management of selected rectal injuries by primary repair. Am J Surg 172(5):575–578CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Weinberg JA, Fabian TC, Magnotti LJ, Minard G, Bee TK, Edwards N, Claridge JA, Croce MA (2006) Penetrating rectal trauma: management by anatomic distinction improves outcome. J Trauma 60(3):508–513CrossRef Weinberg JA, Fabian TC, Magnotti LJ, Minard G, Bee TK, Edwards N, Claridge JA, Croce MA (2006) Penetrating rectal trauma: management by anatomic distinction improves outcome. J Trauma 60(3):508–513CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Management of some extra-peritoneal rectal injuries without fecal diversion may be feasible, but high-quality evidence is still needed
Author
R. W. Schroll
Publication date
01-11-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1902-2

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

Techniques in Coloproctology 11/2018 Go to the issue