Cargando…
Management of Colorectal Trauma
Although the treatment strategy for colorectal trauma has advanced during the last part of the twentieth century and the result has improved, compared to other injuries, problems, such as high septic complication rates and mortality rates, still exist, so standard management for colorectal trauma is...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Society of Coloproctology
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180596/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21980586 http://dx.doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2011.27.4.166 |
_version_ | 1782212660295630848 |
---|---|
author | Choi, Won Jun |
author_facet | Choi, Won Jun |
author_sort | Choi, Won Jun |
collection | PubMed |
description | Although the treatment strategy for colorectal trauma has advanced during the last part of the twentieth century and the result has improved, compared to other injuries, problems, such as high septic complication rates and mortality rates, still exist, so standard management for colorectal trauma is still a controversial issue. For that reason, we designed this article to address current recommendations for management of colorectal injuries based on a review of literature. According to the reviewed data, although sufficient evidence exists for primary repair being the treatment of choice in most cases of nondestructive colon injuries, many surgeons are still concerned about anastomotic leakage or failure, and prefer to perform a diverting colostomy. Recently, some reports have shown that primary repair or resection and anastomosis, is better than a diverting colostomy even in cases of destructive colon injuries, but it has not fully established as the standard treatment. The same guideline as that for colonic injury is applied in cases of intraperitoneal rectal injuries, and, diversion, primary repair, and presacral drainage are regarded as the standards for the management of extraperitoneal rectal injuries. However, some reports state that primary repair without a diverting colostomy has benefit in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal injury, and presacral drainage is still controversial. In conclusion, ideally an individual management strategy would be developed for each patient suffering from colorectal injury. To do this, an evidence-based treatment plan should be carefully developed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3180596 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | The Korean Society of Coloproctology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-31805962011-10-06 Management of Colorectal Trauma Choi, Won Jun J Korean Soc Coloproctol Review Although the treatment strategy for colorectal trauma has advanced during the last part of the twentieth century and the result has improved, compared to other injuries, problems, such as high septic complication rates and mortality rates, still exist, so standard management for colorectal trauma is still a controversial issue. For that reason, we designed this article to address current recommendations for management of colorectal injuries based on a review of literature. According to the reviewed data, although sufficient evidence exists for primary repair being the treatment of choice in most cases of nondestructive colon injuries, many surgeons are still concerned about anastomotic leakage or failure, and prefer to perform a diverting colostomy. Recently, some reports have shown that primary repair or resection and anastomosis, is better than a diverting colostomy even in cases of destructive colon injuries, but it has not fully established as the standard treatment. The same guideline as that for colonic injury is applied in cases of intraperitoneal rectal injuries, and, diversion, primary repair, and presacral drainage are regarded as the standards for the management of extraperitoneal rectal injuries. However, some reports state that primary repair without a diverting colostomy has benefit in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal injury, and presacral drainage is still controversial. In conclusion, ideally an individual management strategy would be developed for each patient suffering from colorectal injury. To do this, an evidence-based treatment plan should be carefully developed. The Korean Society of Coloproctology 2011-08 2011-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC3180596/ /pubmed/21980586 http://dx.doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2011.27.4.166 Text en © 2011 The Korean Society of Coloproctology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Choi, Won Jun Management of Colorectal Trauma |
title | Management of Colorectal Trauma |
title_full | Management of Colorectal Trauma |
title_fullStr | Management of Colorectal Trauma |
title_full_unstemmed | Management of Colorectal Trauma |
title_short | Management of Colorectal Trauma |
title_sort | management of colorectal trauma |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180596/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21980586 http://dx.doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2011.27.4.166 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT choiwonjun managementofcolorectaltrauma |