Miller Preston R, Chang Michael C, Hoth J Jason, Holmes James H, Meredith J Wayne
Department of Surgery, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157, USA.
Am Surg. 2007 Jun;73(6):606-9; discussion 609-10. doi: 10.1177/000313480707300613.
Based on a large body of literature concerning the subject, trauma surgeons are becoming more comfortable with anastomosis rather than stoma creation in patients with destructive colon injuries requiring resection. This literature was largely generated before the widespread acceptance of the importance of damage control laparotomy (DCL). Thus, when such injuries occur in patients initially left in colonic discontinuity after DCL, the question of anastomosis versus stoma becomes more difficult, and there are no data to guide management decisions. The goal of this report is to describe the results of our early experience with delayed anastomosis (DA) after destructive colon injury in the setting of DCL. We reviewed the records of patients with destructive colon injuries at our Level I trauma center over a 5.5-year period for demographics, injury characteristics, and outcome. Studied outcomes included anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal abscess, and colon injury-related death. The decision to proceed with DA was based on individual surgeon opinion at the time of re-exploration. From January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2006, 92 patients sustained colon injury, 55 of which required resection (31 blunt mechanism and 24 penetrating). Twenty-two resections occurred in the setting of DCL. Six of these patients underwent stoma creation and 11 underwent DA. Three died before reoperation, and two had an anastomosis created during the initial DCL. The remaining 33 resections occurred during initial definitive operation, and 21 underwent anastomosis, whereas 12 had a stoma created. Comparing the 11 patients undergoing DA with the 21 undergoing immediate anastomosis, the anastomotic leak rate (0% vs 5%), abscess rate (36% vs 24%), and colon related-death rate (9% vs 0%; all P > 0.05) were similar. Six patients undergoing DA had a right hemicolectomy with ileocolonic anastomosis, four had a segmental left colon resection, and one had a near total abdominal colectomy with ileosigmoid anastomosis. Delayed anastomosis of colon injuries after DCL is safe in selected patients and has a similar complication rate as resection and anastomosis performed during initial definitive operation. DA avoids stoma creation in some patients who are not candidates for anastomosis during initial DCL. To our knowledge, this represents the first reported series of DA after DCL, an area in which further work is needed to carefully define indications for the safe application of this concept.
基于大量关于该主题的文献,创伤外科医生在处理需要切除的结肠毁损性损伤患者时,对吻合术而非造口术越来越得心应手。这些文献大多是在损伤控制剖腹术(DCL)的重要性被广泛认可之前产生的。因此,当此类损伤发生在DCL后最初处于结肠间断状态的患者身上时,吻合术与造口术的问题就变得更加棘手,而且没有数据可指导管理决策。本报告的目的是描述我们在DCL背景下对结肠毁损性损伤进行延迟吻合术(DA)的早期经验结果。我们回顾了我们一级创伤中心5.5年期间结肠毁损性损伤患者的记录,以获取人口统计学、损伤特征和结果信息。研究的结果包括吻合口漏、腹腔内脓肿和结肠损伤相关死亡。进行DA的决定基于再次探查时个别外科医生的意见。从2000年1月1日至2006年7月31日,92例患者发生结肠损伤,其中55例需要切除(31例为钝性机制损伤,24例为穿透性损伤)。22例切除发生在DCL背景下。其中6例患者进行了造口术,11例进行了DA。3例在再次手术前死亡,2例在初次DCL期间进行了吻合术。其余33例切除发生在初次确定性手术期间,21例进行了吻合术,12例进行了造口术。将11例行DA的患者与21例行即刻吻合术的患者进行比较,吻合口漏率(0%对5%)、脓肿率(36%对24%)和结肠相关死亡率(9%对0%;所有P>0.05)相似。6例行DA的患者进行了右半结肠切除术并作回结肠吻合术,4例进行了左半结肠节段性切除术,1例进行了近全腹结肠切除术并作回乙状结肠吻合术。DCL后结肠损伤的延迟吻合术在选定患者中是安全的,并且与初次确定性手术期间进行的切除和吻合术的并发症发生率相似。DA避免了在初次DCL期间不适合进行吻合术的一些患者中造口。据我们所知,这是首次报道的DCL后DA系列,在这一领域需要进一步开展工作以仔细界定该概念安全应用的指征。