Management of colorectal trauma.

Won Jun Choi
{"title":"Management of colorectal trauma.","authors":"Won Jun Choi","doi":"10.3393/jksc.2011.27.4.166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":17346,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3393/jksc.2011.27.4.166","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2011.27.4.166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结直肠创伤的处理。
虽然结直肠创伤的治疗策略在20世纪后半叶有所进步,效果也有所改善,但与其他损伤相比,脓毒症并发症和死亡率高等问题仍然存在,因此结直肠创伤的标准管理仍然是一个有争议的问题。基于这个原因,我们在回顾文献的基础上,设计了这篇文章来讨论目前对结肠直肠损伤治疗的建议。根据回顾的数据,尽管有足够的证据表明,在大多数非破坏性结肠损伤病例中,首选的治疗方法是初级修复,但许多外科医生仍然担心吻合口漏或失败,而倾向于进行转移结肠造口术。最近,一些报道表明,即使在破坏性结肠损伤的情况下,初级修复或切除吻合优于转移结肠造口,但尚未完全确立其作为标准治疗方法。腹膜外直肠损伤采用与结肠损伤相同的治疗指南,将分流、一期修复、骶前引流作为腹膜外直肠损伤的治疗标准。然而,一些报道指出,不进行转移结肠造口的初级修复对治疗腹膜外直肠损伤有好处,骶前引流仍有争议。综上所述,理想情况下,每个结直肠损伤患者都应该制定一种个性化的治疗策略。要做到这一点,应仔细制定循证治疗计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy. Finding a new prognostic biomarker for metastatic colorectal cancer. Pelvic exenteration: surgical approaches. Association of immune status with recurrent anal condylomata in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients. Analysis of risk factors for the development of incisional and parastomal hernias in patients after colorectal surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1