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.

Contemporary management of rectal injuries at Level I trauma centers: The results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study.

INTRODUCTION: Rectal injuries have been historically treated with a combination of modalities including direct repair, resection, proximal diversion, presacral drainage, and distal rectal washout. We hypothesized that intraperitoneal rectal injuries may be selectively managed without diversion and the addition of distal rectal washout and presacral drainage in the management of extraperitoneal injuries are not beneficial. METHODS: This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 of all patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury and were admitted to one of the 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, location and grade of injury, and management of rectal injury were collected. The primary outcome was abdominal complications (abdominal abscess, pelvic abscess, and fascial dehiscence). RESULTS: After exclusions, there were 785 patients in the cohort. Rectal injuries were intraperitoneal in 32%, extraperitoneal in 58%, both in 9%, and not documented in 1%. Rectal injury severity included the following grades I, 28%; II, 41%; III, 13%; IV, 12%; and V, 5%. Patients with intraperitoneal injury managed with a proximal diversion developed more abdominal complications (22% vs 10%, p = 0.003). Among patients with extraperitoneal injuries, there were more abdominal complications in patients who received proximal diversion (p = 0.0002), presacral drain (p = 0.004), or distal rectal washout (p = 0.002). After multivariate analysis, distal rectal washout [3.4 (1.4-8.5), p = 0.008] and presacral drain [2.6 (1.1-6.1), p = 0.02] were independent risk factors to develop abdominal complications. CONCLUSION: Most patients with intraperitoneal injuries undergo direct repair or resection as well as diversion, although diversion is not associated with improved outcomes. While 20% of patients with extraperitoneal injuries still receive a presacral drain and/or distal rectal washout, these additional maneuvers are independently associated with a three-fold increase in abdominal complications and should not be included in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.

Improving surgical systems in low- and middle-income countries: an inclusive framework for monitoring and evaluation.

High disease burden and inadequate resources have formed the basis for advocacy to improve surgical care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Current measures are heavily focused on availability of resources rather than impact and fail to fully describe how surgery can be more integrated into health systems. We propose a new monitoring and evaluation framework of surgical care in LMICs to integrate surgical diseases into broader health system considerations and track efforts toward improved population health. Although more discussion is required, we seek to broaden the dialogue of how to improve surgical care in LMICs through this comprehensive framework.