These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Management of penetrating colon and rectal injuries in the pediatric patient.
    Author: Haut ER, Nance ML, Keller MS, Groner JI, Ford HR, Kuhn A, Tuchfarber B, Garcia V, Schwab CW, Stafford PW.
    Journal: Dis Colon Rectum; 2004 Sep; 47(9):1526-32. PubMed ID: 15486752.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Management of civilian penetrating colon injuries in the adult has evolved from the universal use of fecal diversion to the highly selective use of colostomy. We hypothesized that a similar management approach was appropriate for the pediatric population. METHODS: A retrospective review of pediatric patients (age <17 years) with a penetrating colorectal injury was performed at six Level I trauma centers for the period January 1990 through June 2001. RESULTS: For the period of review, 53 children with a penetrating colorectal injury were identified. Firearms caused 89 percent of the injuries. The colon was injured in 83 percent (n = 44) of patients and the rectum in 17 percent (n = 9) of patients. The colorectal injury was managed without colostomy in 62 percent (n = 33) and with colostomy in 38 percent (colon = 11, rectum = 9). All rectal injuries were treated with colostomy. The hospital length of stay was longer in the colostomy group (17.6 days vs. 11.4 days). The complication rate was higher in the colostomy group (55 percent vs. 27 percent), which included two patients with stoma-related complications. There was no mortality in this series. CONCLUSIONS: Primary repair was used safely in most cases of civilian penetrating colon injuries in the pediatric population. All rectal injuries were treated with colostomy in this series. Fecal diversion was used selectively. Colostomy was performed for selected cases of colon wounds associated with shock, multiple blood transfusions, multiple other injuries, extensive contamination, and high-velocity weapons. In the absence of these associated factors, primary repair appears justified.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]