[Colon injury during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (clinical case, literature review)].

Urolithiasis occupies one of the leading places in terms of the frequency of requests for urgent urological care and emergency hospitalization in specialized departments. Percutaneous surgery for urolithiasis, like any of the surgical methods, is associated with a number of specific and non-specific complications. Of course, the frequency of occurrence is dominated by hemorrhagic and inflammatory complications. But damage to the colon is quite rare and amounts to 0.3-0.4%. Focusing on the literature data, it is possible to identify risk factors for colon damage and clinical manifestations of this complication. Given the small clinical experience, both in the world and in the domestic literature, there is no recommendatory base for the management of patients with colon damage during percutaneous interventions. Publications available for analysis indicate the possibility of both an operative approach with the removal of a colostomy and conservative management of patients with such complications. The article presents a clinical observation of successful conservative management of a patient with damage to the descending colon during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. An assessment of risk factors for colon damage in this patient was given. Imaging methods are presented that confirm the presence of this complication and the resulting recovery during the follow-up examination.

Silent information regulator 2 deficiency exacerbates chronic cold exposure-induced colonic injury and p65 activation in mice.

Cold is a common stressor that threatens colonic health by affecting internal homeostasis. From the literature, Silent information regulator 2 (SIRT2) may have important roles during cold stress, but this conjecture requires investigation. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated the effects of SIRT2 on colonic injury in chronically cold-exposure mice. In a previous study, we showed that SIRT2 regulated p65 activation after cold exposure. In the current study, mice were exposed to 4 °C for 3 h/day for 3 weeks to simulate a chronic cold exposure environment. Chronic cold exposure shortened colon length, disrupted tight junctions in colonic epithelial tissue, and disordered colonic flora. Chronic cold exposure also increased p65 acetylation levels, promoted nuclear factor (NF)-κB activation, and increased the expression of its downstream pro-inflammatory factors, while SIRT2 knockdown aggravated the consequences of tissue structure disruption and increased inflammatory factors brought about by chronic cold exposure to some extent, but could alleviate the downregulation of colonic tight junction-related proteins to some extent. We also observed direct SIRT2 regulatory effects toward p65, and in Caco-2 cells treated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS), SIRT2 knockdown increased p65 acetylation levels and pro-inflammatory factor expression, while SIRT2 overexpression reversed these phenomena. Therefore, SIRT2 deletion exacerbated chronic cold exposure-induced colonic injury and p65 activation in mice. Mechanistically, p65 modification by SIRT2 via deacetylation may affect NF-κB signaling. These findings suggest that SIRT2 is a key target of colonic health maintenance under chronic cold exposure conditions.

Primary Repair Versus Resection for AAST Grade I and II Colon Injuries: Does the Type of Repair Matter?

INTRODUCTION: The management of traumatic colon injuries has evolved over the past two decades. Recent evidence suggests that primary repair or resection over colostomy may decrease morbidity and mortality. Data comparing patients undergoing primary repair versus resection are lacking. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing primary repair versus resection for low-grade colon injuries. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who presented with American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade I and II traumatic colon injuries to our Level I trauma center between 2011 and 2021 was performed. Patients were further dichotomized based on whether they underwent primary repair or resection with anastomosis. Outcome measures included length of stay data, infectious complications, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients met inclusion criteria. The majority of patients (76.7%) were male, and the average age was 35.6 ± 13.1 y. Most patients also underwent primary repair (80.8%). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in arrival physiology or in injury severity score. Length of stay data including hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, and ventilator days were similar between groups. Postoperative complications including pneumonia, surgical site infections, fascial dehiscence, the development of enterocutaneous fistulas, and unplanned returns to the operating room were also all found to be similar between groups. The group who underwent resection with anastomosis did demonstrate a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess development (3.1% versus 26.1%, P < 0001). Mortality between both groups was not found to be statistically significant (7.2% versus 4.3%, P = 0.4) CONCLUSIONS: For low-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma I and II) traumatic colon injuries, patients undergoing primary repair demonstrated a decreased rate of intra-abdominal abscess development when compared to patients who underwent resection with anastomosis.

Proximal protective diverting ostomy following colon anastomosis for penetrating trauma may not be protective: A matched cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the shift toward liberal primary anastomosis in penetrating colon injuries, some surgeons recommend a protective diverting ostomy (DO) proximal to the anastomosis. This study evaluates the effect of DO on outcomes in patients undergoing colon resection and anastomosis following penetrating trauma. METHODS: The TQIP database (2013-2018) was queried for penetrating colon injuries undergoing colectomy and anastomosis. Patients receiving DO were propensity matched to patients without diverting ostomy (woDO) (1:3). Outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: After matching, 89 DO patients were analyzed. The DO group had more surgical site infections (32 â€‹% vs. 21 â€‹%; p â€‹< â€‹0.05) and longer hospital stay (20 [13-27] vs. 15 [9-25]; p â€‹< â€‹0.05) compared to the woDO group. Mortality and unplanned operations were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Diverting ostomy after colon resection and anastomosis is associated with increased infectious complications without decreasing unplanned operations or mortality. Its routine role in penetrating colon trauma needs reassessment.

Anastomotic leak rates after repair of mesenteric bucket-handle injuries: A multi-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Primary aim was to assess the relative risk (RR) of anastomotic leak (AL) in intestinal bucket-handle (BH) compared to non-BH injury. METHODS: Multi-center study comparing AL in BH from blunt trauma 2010-2021 compared to non-BH intestinal injuries. RR was calculated for small bowel and colonic injury using R. RESULTS: AL occurred in 20/385 (5.2%) of BH vs. 4/225 (1.8%) of non-BH small intestine injury. AL was diagnosed 11.6 ± 5.6 days from index operation in small intestine BH and 9.7 ± 4.3 days in colonic BH. Adjusted RR for AL was 2.32 [0.77-6.95] for small intestinal and 4.83 [1.47-15.89] for colonic injuries. AL increased infections, ventilator days, ICU & total length of stay, reoperation, and readmission rates, although mortality was unchanged. CONCLUSION: BH carries a significantly higher risk of AL, particularly in the colon, than other blunt intestinal injuries.

Intravenous Versus Rectal Contrast in CT Imaging for Abdominal Gunshot Wounds.

CT imaging with rectal contrast historically has been a useful tool to help identify potential colon/rectal injuries; however, recent trends have shown less utilization of rectal contrast, in favor of IV contrast CT imaging alone. A retrospective review of patients with abdominal gunshot wounds was carried out to compare the two CT imaging techniques. An analysis of patients with colorectal injuries was conducted. Patients with IV contrast had a sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 96.8%. The PPV was 87.5% and NPV was 95.8%. In the IV and rectal contrast group, the sensitivity was 88.9% and specificity was 90.5%. The PPV was 80% and NPV was 95%. The proportion of missed injuries between the two was not statistically significant, p=0.18. The study suggests that while CT imaging with rectal contrast confidently identifies colon/rectal injuries, there are often secondary findings that will correctly prompt surgical exploration.

Tension pneumoperitoneum following colonic perforation due to barotrauma.

Barotrauma of the colorectum is an uncommon entity that usually occurs after colonoscopy. Perforation of the colon by non-iatrogenic barotrauma of the colon, with tension pneumoperitoneum, is very rare. We present a case of a male patient in his 20s with colon barotrauma caused by industrial compressed air, causing perforation of the transverse colon, with multiple serosal tears throughout the colon. There was also evidence of contusion in the caecum and ascending colon. Primary repair of the perforation and repair of the serosal tears were done along with a covering loop ileostomy.

Tratamiento ambulatorio de la diverticulitis aguda no complicada / Outpatient Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Diverticulitis

Introducción: La diverticulitis aguda es la complicación más frecuente de la enfermedad diverticular del colon y causa de ingresos hospitalarios. Su tratamiento ha sido evaluado en los últimos años y muestra una tendencia a limitar el tratamiento quirúrgico y potenciar el de tipo conservador. Objetivo: Realizar una revisión sobre la aplicabilidad, la seguridad y la eficacia del tratamiento ambulatorio de la diverticulitis aguda no complicada en pacientes seleccionados. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica en fuentes de información disponibles en las bases de datos SciELO, Medline (Pubmed), así como Google académico, donde se escogieron un total de 36 referencias. Desarrollo: Históricamente los pacientes diagnosticados de diverticulitis aguda han sido internados en centros hospitalarios para estudio y tratamiento dietético, antibiótico y analgésico. En los últimos años ha crecido la tendencia en el mundo a tratar estos pacientes de forma ambulatoria una vez comprobado que no se encuentra complicada, lo que ha demostrado con nivel de evidencia, que estos logran presentar una evolución favorable sin necesidad de ingreso, con menos gastos para el sistema de salud. Conclusiones: El tratamiento ambulatorio de la diverticulitis aguda no complicada no solo es eficaz y seguro, sino también aplicable en la mayoría de los pacientes, siempre que toleren la ingesta oral y dispongan de un entorno familiar adecuado(AU)

Introduction: Acute diverticulitis is the most frequent complication of diverticular colon disease and cause of hospitalizations. Its treatment has been assessed in recent years; there is a tendency to limit surgical treatment and promote conservative treatment instead. Objective: To review the applicability, safety and efficacy of outpatient treatment of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis in selected patients. Methods: A bibliographic review was carried out in sources of information available in the SciELO and Medline (Pubmed) databases, as well as in Google Scholar, by means of which a total of 36 references were selected. Development: Historically speaking, patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis have been admitted to hospitals for study and dietary, antibiotic and analgesic treatment. In recent years, there has been a growing tendency worldwide to treat these patients on an outpatient basis once it has been proven that the condition is not complicated, which has shown, with level of evidence, that patients present a favorable evolution without the need for admission, with less expenses for the health system. Conclusions: Outpatient treatment of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis is not only effective and safe, but also applicable in most patients, given that they can tolerate oral intake and have an adequate family environment(AU)

Destructive colon injuries requiring resection: Is colostomy ever indicated?

BACKGROUND: The management of destructive colon injuries requiring resection has shifted from mandatory diverting stoma to liberal use of primary anastomosis. Various risk criteria have been suggested for the selection of patients for primary anastomosis or ostomy. At our center, we have been practicing a policy of liberal primary anastomosis irrespective of risk factors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the colon-related outcomes in patients managed with this policy. METHODS: This retrospective study included all colon injuries requiring resection. Data collected included patient demographics, injury characteristics, blood transfusions, operative findings, operations performed, complications, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 287 colon injuries were identified, 101 of whom required resection, forming the study population. The majority (63.4%) were penetrating injuries. Furthermore, 16.8% were hypotensive on admission, 40.6% had moderate or severe fecal spillage, 35.6% received blood transfusion of >4 U, and 41.6% had Injury Severity Score of >15. At index operation, 88% were managed with primary anastomosis and 12% with colon discontinuity, and one patient had stoma. Damage-control laparotomy (DCL) with temporary abdominal closure was performed in 39.6% of patients. Of these patients with DCL, 67.5% underwent primary anastomosis, 30.0% were left with colon discontinuity, and 2.5% had stoma. Overall, after the definitive management of the colon, including those patients who were initially left in colon discontinuity, only six patients (5.9%) had a stoma. The incidence of anastomotic leaks in patients with primary anastomosis at the index operation was 8.0%, and there was no colon-related mortality. The incidence of colon anastomotic leaks in the 27 patients with DCL and primary anastomosis was 11.1%, and there was no colon-related mortality. Multivariate analysis evaluating possible risk factors identified discontinuity of the colon as independent risk factor for mortality. CONCLUSION: Liberal primary anastomosis should be considered in almost all patients with destructive colon injuries requiring resection, irrespective of risk factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Penetrating colon trauma-the effect of concomitant small bowel injury on outcome.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited evidence to suggest that patients with penetrating colon injury have higher complication rates when there is concomitant small bowel (SB) injury. AIM: We performed a retrospective study looking at outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in patients with- and without concomitant SB injury. METHODS: We interrogated our electronic registry over an eight-year period (2012-2020) for all patients over 18 years who had sustained penetrating colon injury and who had survived beyond 72 h. Demographic data, admission physiology, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were recorded. Two groups of patients were observed: those with colonic injury (no SB injury) and those with combined colon and SB injury. Outcomes observed included leak rates, length of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were eligible for analysis, of which 257 had colon injury without SB injury and 193 had a combination of colon and SB injury. There was no difference in mechanism of injury between groups. Admission physiology was similar between groups but arterial blood gas values were worse in the combined group. Rates of damage control surgery and ICU admission were higher in the combined group. Primary repair was done in equal proportions between groups but anastomosis was more frequently performed in the combined group. There was no difference in complication rates, including gastro-intestinal complications and suture line leaks. Length of ICU stay, LOS, and mortality were similar between groups. Univariable analysis demonstrated that the presence of concomitant small bowel injury was not an independent risk factor for colonic suture line failure or death. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence from this data that the presence of a combined penetrating colon and SB injury should change management priorities. Each injury should be treated on its own merit, in the context of the patient's physiology.

Penetrating Colon Trauma-the Effect of Injury Location on Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence to suggest that the more distal a penetrating colonic injury, the poorer its expected outcome, prompting consideration of diversion rather than anastomosis when faced with left colonic injury. The clinical outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in relation to their anatomical location within the colon were reviewed. METHODS: A review was performed over eight years (2012-2020) of all patients over 18 years who had sustained penetrating colon injury and presented to our trauma centre in South Africa. Direct comparison was made between right colon vs left colon injuries. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were included; right colon: 260, left colon: 190. Gunshots predominated in the right colon, and the PATI was higher in this group. There were minimal differences in admission physiology and blood gas parameters between groups, but higher damage control surgery and ICU admission rates for the right colon group. There were similar rates of primary repair, anastomosis, and stoma between groups. Leak rates were no different between the two groups, and although overall complication rates were higher for the right colon, there was no difference with regard to gastro-intestinal and other complications, nor for mortality. While regression analysis did identify PATI to be a risk factor for overall complications and mortality, it failed to do so for anastomotic leak. CONCLUSION: Our study did not demonstrate any difference in anastomotic leak rates or mortality between right vs left colonic injury. We recommend that all colonic injuries should be treated on their own merit, balanced against the patient's condition, regardless of anatomical location within the colon.

Relato de caso: trombose de veia porta e mesentérica em paciente com retocolite ulcerativa ativa / Case report: mesenteric and portal vein thrombosis in a patient with active ulcerative colitis

Introdução: A retocolite ulcerativa (RCU) é uma doença inflamatória intestinal (DII) crônica caracterizada por episódios recorrentes de inflamação, que acomete predominantemente a camada mucosa do cólon. Em até 10% dos casos a apresentação ocorre com manifestações extraintestinais (MEI). Entre elas, as mais comuns são a sacroileíte e a artrite periférica. Manifestações oculares, cutâneas e vasculares são raramente vistas. Entre as manifestações vasculares, está o surgimento de tromboembolismo venoso (TEV). Objetivo: Relatar caso de paciente diagnosticado com retocolite ulcerativa que se apresentou com trombose de veia porta e mesentérica como MEI da DII. Metodologia: Trata-se do relato do caso de um paciente atendido no Serviço de Gastroenterologia do Hospital do Servidor Público Municipal de São Paulo (HSPM). Esta pesquisa foi aprovada pelo Comitê de Ética do Hospital do Servidor Público Municipal (HSPM), visto cumprir os requisitos da Resolução 466/2012 do Conselho Nacional de Saúde, quanto aos aspectos éticos e legais das pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos. Conclusão: A MEI de trombose portal e mesentérica em caso de retocolite ulcerativa apresentada pelo paciente descrito é muito rara, com incidência ainda incerta. A RCU manifestando-se com trombose de veia porta e mesentérica tem relação com a extensão da doença, além de fatores ambientais e genéticos. Mais estudos clínicos são necessários para estabelecer, de forma mais concreta, o manejo e o prognóstico dos pacientes com essa manifestação. Palavras-Chave: Retocolite Ulcerativa, Trombose Venosa Mesentérica, Anticoagulantes.

Colon Perforation in a 22-year-old Male with Bartter's Syndrome, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Leishmaniasis.

Bartter's syndrome (BS) is an inherited renal tubular disorder characterized by hypochloremia, hypokalemia, metabolic alkalosis. Prognosis of Bartter's syndrome depends on the severity of the receptor dysfunction. In many cases the prognosis is good and patients are able to have fairly normal lives. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease of unknown cause that can affect virtually any organ of the body. The prognosis of SLE is quite variable, depending on the severity of the disease, the clinical course and organs involved. The last decades, there is a marked improvement in patient survival due to earlier diagnosis and treatment. Despite these improvements, patients with SLE still have higher mortality rates ranging from two to five times higher than that of the general population. Leishmaniasis is a disease caused by an intracellular protozoan parasite transmitted by the bite of a female phlebotomine sandfly. We report herein the case of a 22-year-old man with Bartter's syndrome (BS) and Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), who was hospitalized in the clinic of internal medicine because of Leishmaniasis. In the third day of his hospitalization the patient underwent Hartmann's operation for perforation located on descending colon. Management of patients with many severe diseases is very difficult for medical professionals.

Evaluation of the serrated lesions detection rate and its role as a colonoscopy quality criteria

Objectives: To evaluate the serrated lesion detection rate in colonoscopy at a specialized clinic and its role as quality criteria for endoscopic examination. Methods: This is an observational cross-sectional study with all patients that underwent colonoscopy between October 2018 and May 2019, performed by an experimented physician. A questionnaire was answered before the examination by the patient, and another questionnaire after the colonoscopy was answered by themedical team. All polyps identified were removed and sent to the same pathologist for analysis. Results: A total of 1,000 colonoscopies were evaluated. The average age of the patients was 58.9 years old, and most of them were female (60.6%). In 62.5% of the procedures, polyps were removed, obtaining a total of 1,730 polyps, of which 529 were serrated lesions, being 272 sessile serrated lesions (SSL). This data resulted in a serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) of 29.2%, and of 14% when considering only the SSL detection rate (SSLDR). The right colon had higher rates, with 22.3% SDR and 15.3% SSLDR. Screening colonoscopies also presented a higher serrated detection rate, of 20%, followed by diagnostics and follow-up exams. Smoking was the only risk factor associated with higher serrated detection rate. Conclusions: The serrated lesion detection rate is higher than the ones already previously suggested and the have the higher rates were stablished in the right colon and on screening exams. (AU)

Rectal damage control: when to do and not to do.

Rectal trauma is uncommon, but it is usually associated with injuries in adjacent pelvic or abdominal organs. Recent studies have changed the paradigm behind military rectal trauma management, showing better morbidity and mortality. However, damage control techniques in rectal trauma remain controversial. This article aims to present an algorithm for the treatment of rectal trauma in a patient with hemodynamic instability, according to damage control surgery principles. We propose to manage intraperitoneal rectal injuries in the same way as colon injuries. The treatment of extraperitoneal rectum injuries will depend on the percentage of the circumference involved. For injuries involving more than 25% of the circumference, a colostomy is indicated. While injuries involving less than 25% of the circumference can be managed through a conservative approach or primary repair. In rectal trauma, knowing when to do or not to do it makes the difference.

El trauma de recto es poco frecuente, pero generalmente se asocia a lesiones de órganos adyacentes en la región pélvica y abdominal. Estudios recientes han cambiado los paradigmas del manejo tradicional derivados del trauma militar, mostrando mejores resultados en la morbilidad y mortalidad. Sin embargo, las técnicas de control de daños en el trauma rectal aún son controvertidas. El objetivo de este articulo es proponer el algoritmo de manejo del paciente con trauma rectal e inestabilidad hemodinámica, según los principios de la cirugía de control de daños. Se propone que las lesiones del recto en su porción intraperitoneal sean manejadas de la misma manera que las lesiones del colon. Mientras que el manejo de las lesiones extraperitoneales del recto dependerá del compromiso de la circunferencia rectal. Si es mayor del 25% se recomienda realizar una colostomía. Si es menor, se propone optar por el manejo conservador o el reparo primario. Saber que hacer o que no hacer en el trauma de recto marca la diferencia.

Penetrating colonic trauma and damage control surgery: Anastomosis or stoma?

BACKGROUND: The management of colon injuries in damage control surgery (DCS) remains controversial. METHODS: A retrospective study investigating outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in patients who survived beyond the initial repeat laparotomy (IRL) after DCS was performed. Patients over 18 years with penetrating colon injury and who underwent DCS from 2012 to 2020 were included from our electronic trauma registry. Demographic data, admission physiology and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were reviewed. Patients were classified into three groups: primary repair of non-destructive injuries at DCL, delayed anastomosis of destructive injuries at IRL and diversion of destructive injuries at IRL. Outcomes observed included leak rates, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, morbidities, mortality and colon-related mortality. RESULTS: Out of 584 patients with penetrating colonic trauma, 89 (15%) underwent DCS. After exclusions, 74 patients were analysed. Mean age was 32.8 years (SD 12.5); 67 (91%) were male. Mechanism of injury was gunshot in 63 (85%) and stab 11 (15%) patients. Seventeen patients underwent primary repair at DCS, of which one leaked. Twenty patients underwent delayed anastomosis at IRL. Of these, five (25%) developed leaks. Mortality was significantly higher for those with an anastomotic leak compared to those without (p < 0.001). Thirty-seven patients were diverted at IRL. Overall mortality (p = 0.622) and colon-related mortality (p = 0.592) were not significantly different across groups. CONCLUSION: Delayed anastomosis at IRL following DCL was associated with a leak rate of 25% in this study. When anastomotic leak did occur, it was associated with significant mortality. Delayed anastomosis should only be undertaken in highly selected patients.

Medico-legal implications for the colon perforation during colonoscopy.

Colon perforation is the most serious complication of colonoscopy, and tends to be considered as malpractice. The aim of this study was to identify the characteristics and causes of medical accidents by analyzing lawsuit cases on colon perforation during colonoscopy. We collected judgment results that were ruled from 2005 to 2015 using the keyword 'colonoscopy' in the 'Korea's Written Judgment Public Reading System' of the Supreme Court, and extracted the cases of colon perforation. Characteristics of medical accidents and the decisions of courts were analyzed from written judgments. Twenty-two lawsuits were analyzed. Most cases were ruled in favor of the plaintiff (n = 20). The allegations against defendants, as filed by the plaintiffs, were performance error (n = 22), improper monitoring after colonoscopy (n = 7), and a lack of informed consent (n = 8). The median compensation was 9335.47 US dollars; this is about 130 times the cost of a single colonoscopy in Korea. The greater the intestinal damage, the greater the amount of compensation (p = 0.016). The time interval from procedure to diagnosis of perforation was most frequently 24 h later (n = 9). It is important to educate patients completely about the symptoms of colon perforation and to guide them to contact medical institutions immediately when symptoms occur. In addition, doctors should explain sufficiently the possibility of perforation before colonoscopy to the patient, and not the caregiver, and get informed consent.