Adherence to a simplified management algorithm reduces morbidity and mortality after penetrating colon injuries

A 15-year experience

John P. Sharpe, Louis J. Magnotti, Jordan A. Weinberg, Nancy A. Parks, George O. Maish, Charles P. Shahan, Timothy Fabian, Martin Croce

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Our previous experience with colon injuries suggested that operative decisions based on a defined algorithm improve outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of this algorithm in the face of an increased incidence of destructive injuries observed in recent years. Study Design: Consecutive patients with full-thickness penetrating colon injuries over an 8-year period were evaluated. Per algorithm, patients with nondestructive injuries underwent primary repair. Those with destructive wounds underwent resection plus anastomosis in the absence of comorbidities or large pre- or intraoperative transfusion requirements (more than 6 units packed RBCs); otherwise they were diverted. Outcomes from the current study (CS group) were compared with those from the previous study (PS group). Results: There were 252 patients who had full-thickness penetrating colon injuries: 150 (60%) patients had nondestructive colon wounds treated with primary repair and 102 patients (40%) had destructive wounds (CS). Demographics and intraoperative transfusions were similar between CS and PS groups. Of the 102 patients with destructive injuries, 75% underwent resection plus anastomosis and 25% underwent diversion. Despite more destructive injuries managed in the CS group (41% vs 27%), abscess rate (18% vs 27%) and colon-related mortality (1% vs 5%) were lower in the CS. Suture line failure was similar in CS compared with PS (5% vs 7%). Adherence to the algorithm was >90% in the CS (similar to PS). Conclusions: Despite an increase in the incidence of destructive colon injuries, our management algorithm remains valid. Destructive injuries associated with pre- or intraoperative transfusion requirements of more than 6 units packed RBCs and/or significant comorbidities are best managed with diversion. By managing the majority of other destructive injuries with resection plus anastomosis, acceptably low morbidity and mortality can be achieved.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)591-597
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume214
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2012

Fingerprint

Colon
Morbidity
Mortality
Wounds and Injuries
Comorbidity
Incidence
Abscess
Sutures
Demography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Adherence to a simplified management algorithm reduces morbidity and mortality after penetrating colon injuries : A 15-year experience. / Sharpe, John P.; Magnotti, Louis J.; Weinberg, Jordan A.; Parks, Nancy A.; Maish, George O.; Shahan, Charles P.; Fabian, Timothy; Croce, Martin.

In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Vol. 214, No. 4, 01.04.2012, p. 591-597.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sharpe, John P. ; Magnotti, Louis J. ; Weinberg, Jordan A. ; Parks, Nancy A. ; Maish, George O. ; Shahan, Charles P. ; Fabian, Timothy ; Croce, Martin. / Adherence to a simplified management algorithm reduces morbidity and mortality after penetrating colon injuries : A 15-year experience. In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2012 ; Vol. 214, No. 4. pp. 591-597.
@article{45f37211d8a44ab1aa0898f0515cc724,
title = "Adherence to a simplified management algorithm reduces morbidity and mortality after penetrating colon injuries: A 15-year experience",
abstract = "Background: Our previous experience with colon injuries suggested that operative decisions based on a defined algorithm improve outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of this algorithm in the face of an increased incidence of destructive injuries observed in recent years. Study Design: Consecutive patients with full-thickness penetrating colon injuries over an 8-year period were evaluated. Per algorithm, patients with nondestructive injuries underwent primary repair. Those with destructive wounds underwent resection plus anastomosis in the absence of comorbidities or large pre- or intraoperative transfusion requirements (more than 6 units packed RBCs); otherwise they were diverted. Outcomes from the current study (CS group) were compared with those from the previous study (PS group). Results: There were 252 patients who had full-thickness penetrating colon injuries: 150 (60{\%}) patients had nondestructive colon wounds treated with primary repair and 102 patients (40{\%}) had destructive wounds (CS). Demographics and intraoperative transfusions were similar between CS and PS groups. Of the 102 patients with destructive injuries, 75{\%} underwent resection plus anastomosis and 25{\%} underwent diversion. Despite more destructive injuries managed in the CS group (41{\%} vs 27{\%}), abscess rate (18{\%} vs 27{\%}) and colon-related mortality (1{\%} vs 5{\%}) were lower in the CS. Suture line failure was similar in CS compared with PS (5{\%} vs 7{\%}). Adherence to the algorithm was >90{\%} in the CS (similar to PS). Conclusions: Despite an increase in the incidence of destructive colon injuries, our management algorithm remains valid. Destructive injuries associated with pre- or intraoperative transfusion requirements of more than 6 units packed RBCs and/or significant comorbidities are best managed with diversion. By managing the majority of other destructive injuries with resection plus anastomosis, acceptably low morbidity and mortality can be achieved.",
author = "Sharpe, {John P.} and Magnotti, {Louis J.} and Weinberg, {Jordan A.} and Parks, {Nancy A.} and Maish, {George O.} and Shahan, {Charles P.} and Timothy Fabian and Martin Croce",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.029",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "214",
pages = "591--597",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Surgeons",
issn = "1072-7515",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adherence to a simplified management algorithm reduces morbidity and mortality after penetrating colon injuries

T2 - A 15-year experience

AU - Sharpe, John P.

AU - Magnotti, Louis J.

AU - Weinberg, Jordan A.

AU - Parks, Nancy A.

AU - Maish, George O.

AU - Shahan, Charles P.

AU - Fabian, Timothy

AU - Croce, Martin

PY - 2012/4/1

Y1 - 2012/4/1

N2 - Background: Our previous experience with colon injuries suggested that operative decisions based on a defined algorithm improve outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of this algorithm in the face of an increased incidence of destructive injuries observed in recent years. Study Design: Consecutive patients with full-thickness penetrating colon injuries over an 8-year period were evaluated. Per algorithm, patients with nondestructive injuries underwent primary repair. Those with destructive wounds underwent resection plus anastomosis in the absence of comorbidities or large pre- or intraoperative transfusion requirements (more than 6 units packed RBCs); otherwise they were diverted. Outcomes from the current study (CS group) were compared with those from the previous study (PS group). Results: There were 252 patients who had full-thickness penetrating colon injuries: 150 (60%) patients had nondestructive colon wounds treated with primary repair and 102 patients (40%) had destructive wounds (CS). Demographics and intraoperative transfusions were similar between CS and PS groups. Of the 102 patients with destructive injuries, 75% underwent resection plus anastomosis and 25% underwent diversion. Despite more destructive injuries managed in the CS group (41% vs 27%), abscess rate (18% vs 27%) and colon-related mortality (1% vs 5%) were lower in the CS. Suture line failure was similar in CS compared with PS (5% vs 7%). Adherence to the algorithm was >90% in the CS (similar to PS). Conclusions: Despite an increase in the incidence of destructive colon injuries, our management algorithm remains valid. Destructive injuries associated with pre- or intraoperative transfusion requirements of more than 6 units packed RBCs and/or significant comorbidities are best managed with diversion. By managing the majority of other destructive injuries with resection plus anastomosis, acceptably low morbidity and mortality can be achieved.

AB - Background: Our previous experience with colon injuries suggested that operative decisions based on a defined algorithm improve outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of this algorithm in the face of an increased incidence of destructive injuries observed in recent years. Study Design: Consecutive patients with full-thickness penetrating colon injuries over an 8-year period were evaluated. Per algorithm, patients with nondestructive injuries underwent primary repair. Those with destructive wounds underwent resection plus anastomosis in the absence of comorbidities or large pre- or intraoperative transfusion requirements (more than 6 units packed RBCs); otherwise they were diverted. Outcomes from the current study (CS group) were compared with those from the previous study (PS group). Results: There were 252 patients who had full-thickness penetrating colon injuries: 150 (60%) patients had nondestructive colon wounds treated with primary repair and 102 patients (40%) had destructive wounds (CS). Demographics and intraoperative transfusions were similar between CS and PS groups. Of the 102 patients with destructive injuries, 75% underwent resection plus anastomosis and 25% underwent diversion. Despite more destructive injuries managed in the CS group (41% vs 27%), abscess rate (18% vs 27%) and colon-related mortality (1% vs 5%) were lower in the CS. Suture line failure was similar in CS compared with PS (5% vs 7%). Adherence to the algorithm was >90% in the CS (similar to PS). Conclusions: Despite an increase in the incidence of destructive colon injuries, our management algorithm remains valid. Destructive injuries associated with pre- or intraoperative transfusion requirements of more than 6 units packed RBCs and/or significant comorbidities are best managed with diversion. By managing the majority of other destructive injuries with resection plus anastomosis, acceptably low morbidity and mortality can be achieved.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859213882&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859213882&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.029

DO - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.029

M3 - Article

VL - 214

SP - 591

EP - 597

JO - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

JF - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

SN - 1072-7515

IS - 4

ER -