[The role of a systematic second look at 48-72 hours in high-pressure injection injuries to the hand: a retrospective study]. / Intérêt d'un « second look ¼ systématique à 48-72 heures dans les injections à haute pression de la main : une étude rétrospective.

OBJECTIVES: Poorly standardized, the management of high pressure injections (HPI) is frequently too late and inadequate, some teams reporting up to 50% of amputations. HPI causes inoculation of toxic particles in depth, particularly difficult to remove surgically. The persistence of this foreign material maintains local inflammation and increases the risk of infection. The objective of this article is to validate the benefit of a systematic "second look" at 48-72 hours in HPI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study from 2006 to 2010, of patients who had a HPI into the hand. All patients had initial debridement surgery and a "second look" was systematically performed at 48-72 hours. RESULTS: During this period, six patients were treated for a HPI of paint (n=4) or oil (n=2). The time between the accident and surgery was 12.4 hours (2-24). Four patients had good functional outcome with no disabling sequelae. We performed two amputations. At six months, five patients returned to work. CONCLUSIONS: Early management determines the prognosis of the HPI. Extended debridement within six hours showed a better functional outcome than later treatment. Performing a systematic "second look" allows further washing/debridement and gives the possibility to be more conservative during the initial procedure. This second debridement allows excision of the newly formed necrosis and to evacuate the remaining toxic residues. Finally, patients reported good functional outcome.

Benefits of perineal colostomy on perineal morbidity after abdominoperineal resection.

PURPOSE: Abdominoperineal resection has a high rate of postoperative morbidity of the perineal wound. This study aimed to determine the effects of perineal colostomy on perineal morbidity after abdominoperineal resection. METHODS: All patients who underwent an abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma between 1993 and 2007 were studied. Two groups were identified and compared who had undergone either an iliac colostomy or a perineal colostomy. RESULTS: The analysis included 110 patients (iliac colostomy group, n = 41; perineal colostomy group, n = 69). There were fewer instances of pelviperineal morbidity (P = .008) and fewer instances of wound dehiscence (P = .02) in the perineal colostomy group, which resulted in a shorter time to healing (35.3 vs 45.1 d, respectively; P = .04). There was no specific postoperative morbidity in any patient and no difference between the 2 groups regarding long-term perineal morbidity. The benefits from perineal colostomy were statistically significant in patients who received radiation therapy in terms of pelviperineal morbidity (P = .01) and healing time (50.8 vs 35.9 days, respectively; P = .02), whereas no difference was found in patients who had not received radiation therapy. CONCLUSION: Perineal colostomy is a safe and functionally acceptable procedure for perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma. In the present study, there was no additional morbidity related to perineal colostomy, and this procedure was associated with a decrease in perineal morbidity and healing time compared with primary perineal closure, in particular, after radiotherapy treatment.