Management of penetrating intraperitoneal colon injuries: A meta-analysis and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

Published

Journal Article

BACKGROUND: The management of penetrating colon injuries in civilians has evolved over the last four decades. The objectives of this meta-analysis are to evaluate the current treatment regimens available for penetrating colon injuries and assess the role of anastomosis in damage control surgery to develop a practice management guideline for surgeons. METHODS: Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, a subcommittee of the Practice Management Guidelines section of EAST conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE and EMBASE articles from 1980 through 2017. We developed three relevant problem, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) questions regarding penetrating colon injuries. Outcomes of interest included mortality and infectious abdominal complications. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were identified for analysis, of which 16 met criteria for quantitative meta-analysis and included 705 patients considered low-risk in six prospective randomized studies. Seven hundred thirty-eight patients in 10 studies undergoing damage control laparotomy and repair or resection and anastomosis (R&A) were included in a separate meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of high-risk patients undergoing repair or R&A was not feasible due to inadequate data. CONCLUSIONS: In adult civilian patients sustaining penetrating colon injury without signs of shock, significant hemorrhage, severe contamination, or delay to surgical intervention we recommend that colon repair or R&A be performed rather than routine colostomy. In adult high-risk civilian trauma patients sustaining penetrating colon injury, we conditionally recommend that colon repair or R&A be performed rather than routine colostomy. In adult civilian trauma patients sustaining penetrating colon injury who had damage control laparotomy, we conditionally recommend that routine colostomy not be performed; instead, definitive repair or delayed R&A or anastomosis at initial operation should be performed rather than routine colostomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Cullinane, DC; Jawa, RS; Como, JJ; Moore, AE; Morris, DS; Cheriyan, J; Guillamondegui, OD; Goldberg, SR; Petrey, L; Schaefer, GP; Khwaja, KA; Rowell, SE; Barbosa, RR; Bass, GA; Kasotakis, G; Robinson, BRH

Published Date

  • March 2019

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 86 / 3

Start / End Page

  • 505 - 515

PubMed ID

  • 30789470

Pubmed Central ID

  • 30789470

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 2163-0763

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1097/TA.0000000000002146

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States