Trends in the Management of Abdominal Gunshot Wounds Over the Last Decade: A South African Experience.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review our decade-long experience with the management of abdominal gunshot wounds (GSWs), to document trends in our approach and to develop an evidence base for our contemporary management algorithms in a major trauma in South Africa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study that included all adult patients with abdominal GSWs between January 2013 and October 2020 managed at a major trauma centre in South Africa. RESULT: Five hundred and ninety-six cases were included (87% male, mean age: 32 years). The median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 12. 52% (309/596) of cases had indications of immediate laparotomy and proceeded directly to the operating room without any CT imaging. Of this cohort, the laparotomy was positive in 292 and in the remainder (5%) was negative. Of the remaining 287 cases, 209 underwent a CT scan (35%). 78 were managed without any CT imaging. Of the 78 who did not undergo CT scan, all were managed without any operation and discharged home well. Of the 209 who underwent CT scan, 99 were observed and only one case in this group subsequently required a laparotomy. The remaining 110 cases underwent a laparotomy, which was negative in 7. There were correlations with increasing use of CT, as well as a decrease in those proceeding directly to laparotomy. The overall morbidity rate was 8% (47/596). 32% (190/596) require intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The overall mortality rate was 8% (67/596). CONCLUSIONS: The management of abdominal GSWs has continued to evolve. There is now a well-defined role for selective non-operative management in this group of patients and relies on accurate CT assessment. CT scan is now an important component in the management of abdominal GSW even in our resource-constrained environment.

Retrospective cohort study of paediatric splenic injuries at a major adult trauma centre in South Africa identifies areas of success and improvement.

This study reviews our experience with paediatric splenic trauma in a major trauma centre in South Africa. We reviewed the management and outcomes of 66 paediatric patients and concluded that selective non-operative management of paediatric splenic trauma can be undertaken successfully in a middle-income country such as South Africa. The grade of splenic injury itself is rarely the sole determinant of operative or non-operative treatment and clinical outcome.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 50 years, the gold standard for paediatric trauma management has grown to be non-operative management. This study reviews a South African experience with paediatric splenic trauma in order to benchmark this against the international standard and to identify discrepancies in access to care and in surgical outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at a major trauma centre in South Africa. All children less than 18 years of age who were admitted to our trauma centre following trauma between December 2012 and October 2020 were identified and all those who sustained splenic trauma were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 66 patients reviewed, 48 (72%) were male, and the median age was 12 years (0-18 years). Thirty-three (51%) were of rural origin and 61 (93%) sustained blunt trauma. Only eight (12%) had an isolated splenic injury, while the remaining 58 (88%) had other associated injuries. Forty-five patients (68%) were managed non-operatively whilst the remainder were subjected to laparotomy. Five (7%) required a splenectomy and one required angio-embolisation. Twenty-six patients (39%) required intensive care unit (ICU) admission: 15 (37%) in the non-operative cohort required ICU admission and eight (40%) in the laparotomy group required ICU admission. Twenty-eight (42%) patients required ventilatory support. Median length of stay was 5.5 days. Four (6%) patients died. CONCLUSIONS: Although non-operative management of paediatric splenic trauma can be undertaken successfully by adult trauma surgeons in a middle-income country such as South Africa, there remains room for improvement. To achieve splenic salvage rates comparable to those in dedicated paediatric trauma centres in high-income countries will require systematic quality improvement programmes.

Post-colonoscopy appendicitis: Systematic review of current evidence.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Appendicitis after colonoscopy is an exceedingly rare complication. It remains to be explored if this entity is truly a complication of colonoscopy or a coincidental occurrence of appendicitis post-colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to systematically review all the available evidence since it was first described in 1988. METHODS: The literature on post-colonoscopy appendicitis was searched using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Additional manual search was performed and cross-checked for additional references. The search was performed up to November 2019. Data collected included demographics, reason for colonoscopy, time to diagnosis, imaging performed, management, and outcome. RESULTS: Fifty-three cases were found in the systematic review with a median age of 55 years (24-84 years). The time to diagnosis post-colonoscopy was mostly within 24-48 h. Clinical features mimicked those of common acute appendicitis. In the past decade, computed tomography scan has been the imaging choice to investigate abdominal pain after colonoscopy, mainly to rule out perforation. The mainstay of management was appendectomy (open or laparoscopy). Four of the 12 cases (33.3%) were treated successfully with antibiotics alone. There has been a twofold increase in cases reported in the past decade (2009-2019, n = 31 vs 1999-2008, n = 15). CONCLUSION: There is a considerable variation in the definition of post-colonoscopy appendicitis in the current literature. Regardless of whether post-colonoscopy appendicitis is a true entity, it should be considered as a differential diagnosis in any patient presenting with acute abdomen following colonoscopy.

Contemporary management of rectal trauma - A South African experience.

INTRODUCTION: The management of rectal trauma remains controversial. There are three modalities which have been used to manage these injuries; proximal diversion (PD), washout of the distal rectum (DRW) and presacral drainage (PSD). The EAST group tentatively advocate mandatory proximal diversion for extraperitoneal rectal injuries and omitting DRW or PSD. Other authors have suggested that diversion can be eschewed in patients with an intraperitoneal injury which can be primarily repaired. In light of all these controversies, this project set out to review our experience with rectal injuries over the last seven years with the objective of reviewing our use of PD, PSD and DRW. METHODS: Patients aged greater than or equal to 15 years with rectal injuries during December 2012 to July 2019 were included. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, management strategy (operative or non-operative), complications, patient residential status (urban or rural), hospital and intensive care duration of stay, and 30-day mortality rates were assessed. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 51 patients with a rectal injury were treated. There were 45 (88%) males and the median age was 29 (22-39) years. There were 7 (14%) blunt mechanisms, 41 (80%) penetrating mechanisms and 3 (6%) combined blunt and penetrating mechanisms. The median ISS was 13 (9-18). Of the 50 rectal injuries ultimately treated at our institution, there were 31 extraperitoneal and 14 intraperitoneal injuries. There were five combined intra and extraperitoneal injuries. A total of 21 rigid sigmoidoscopies and a single flexible sigmoidoscopy were performed. A total of 24 patients underwent a CT scan. There were 13 primary repairs and 45 PD. A single patient required a PSD. Of the 34 documented complications, 15 (44%) were related to sepsis and can be attributed to the rectal injury. The overall mortality rate was 11.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal injuries are associated with significant septic related morbidity and mortality. Although we have begun to avoid diversion in a small subset of patients with an intraperitoneal injury, we continue to perform PD for the vast majority of patients with a rectal injury. We do not perform DRW and PSD is used in highly selective cases.