Rectal Injury After Foreign Body Insertion: Secondary Analysis From the AAST Contemporary Management of Rectal Injuries Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Retained rectal foreign bodies are a common but incompletely studied problem. This study defined the epidemiology, injury severity, and outcomes after rectal injuries following foreign body insertion. METHODS: Twenty-two level I trauma centers retrospectively identified all patients sustaining a rectal injury in this AAST multi-institutional trial (2005-2014). Only patients injured by foreign body insertion were included in this secondary analysis. Exclusion criteria were death before rectal injury management or ≤48 h of admission. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Study groups were defined as partial thickness (AAST grade I) versus full thickness (AAST grades II-V) injuries. Subgroup analysis was performed by management strategy (nonoperative versus operative). RESULTS: After exclusions, 33 patients were identified. Mean age was 41 y (range 18-57), and 85% (n = 28) were male. Eleven (33%) had full thickness injuries and 22 (67%) had partial thickness injuries, of which 14 (64%) were managed nonoperatively and 8 (36%) operatively (proximal diversion alone [n = 3, 14%]; direct repair with proximal diversion [n = 2, 9%]; laparotomy without rectal intervention [n = 2, 9%]; and direct repair alone [n = 1, 5%]). Subgroup analysis of outcomes after partial thickness injury demonstrated significantly shorter hospital length of stay (2 ± 1; 2 [1-5] versus 5 ± 2; 4 [2-8] d, P = 0.0001) after nonoperative versus operative management. CONCLUSIONS: Although partial thickness rectal injuries do not require intervention, difficulty excluding full thickness injuries led some surgeons in this series to manage partial thickness injuries operatively. This was associated with significantly longer hospital length of stay. Therefore, we recommend nonoperative management after a retained rectal foreign body unless full thickness injury is conclusively identified.

Traumatic rectal injuries: Is the combination of computed tomography and rigid proctoscopy sufficient?

BACKGROUND: There are no clear guidelines for the best test or combination of tests to identify traumatic rectal injuries. We hypothesize that computed tomography (CT) and rigid proctoscopy (RP) will identify all injuries. METHODS: American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study (2004-2015) of patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury. Patients with known rectal injuries who underwent both CT and RP as part of their diagnostic workup were included. Only patients with full thickness injuries (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade II-V) were included. Computed tomography findings of rectal injury, perirectal stranding, or rectal wall thickening and RP findings of blood, mucosal abnormalities, or laceration were considered positive. RESULTS: One hundred six patients were identified. Mean age was 32 years, 85(79%) were male, and 67(63%) involved penetrating mechanisms. A total of 36 (34%) and 100 (94%) patients had positive CT and RP findings, respectively. Only 3 (3%) patients had both a negative CT and negative RP. On further review, each of these three patients had intraperitoneal injuries and had indirect evidence of rectal injury on CT scan including pneumoperitoneum or sacral fracture. CONCLUSION: As stand-alone tests, neither CT nor RP can adequately identify traumatic rectal injuries. However, the combination of both test demonstrates a sensitivity of 97%. Intraperitoneal injuries may be missed by both CT and RP, so patients with a high index of suspicion and/or indirect evidence of rectal injury on CT scan may necessitate laparotomy for definitive diagnosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, level IV.