Outcomes of Colostomy Reversal in a Public Safety Net Hospital: The End or Beginning of a New Problem?

Colostomy reversals can be technically challenging and linked to significant morbidity. There is sparse evidence that evaluates outcomes after colostomy reversals performed by acute care surgeons. We performed a review of 61 colostomy reversals from January 2011 to January 2014. Colostomies for acute diverticulitis were predominate, n = 32 (52%). Traumatic colorectal injuries were n = 15, 25 per cent. Colorectal cancer was n = 8, 13 per cent. Sigmoid volvulus accounted for n = 2 cases. Abdominal sepsis from adhesions was n = 3. A rectal foreign body was for n = 1 case. The time to reversal was 360 ± 506 days. Completion of reversals was successful in 90 per cent of cases and protecting stoma use was in n = 12, (22%). Surgical site infections occurred in n = 20, patients (32%). Surgical site infections were prevalent in obese patients, (55%). Anastomotic leaks (ALs) occurred at 12 per cent, and were prevalent in obese, [obese (22%) vs nonobese (8%), P = 0.1]. The majority of AL n = 6, (85%) were in acute diverticulitis and trauma. There were no ALs in cases with protective diversion. No deaths occurred. The elective nature of colostomy reversals does not imply low morbidity. Obesity and major inflammatory processes were associated with major surgical complications. These data suggest that protective stomas should be applied liberally, particularly in high-risk cases.

Not all intestinal traumatic injuries are the same: a comparison of surgically treated blunt vs. penetrating injuries.

PURPOSE: Traumatic intestinal injuries are less common with blunt compared to penetrating mechanisms of trauma and blunt injuries are often associated with diagnostic delays. The purpose of this study is to evaluate differences in the characteristics and outcomes between blunt and penetrating intestinal injuries to facilitate insight into optimal recognition and management. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of trauma admissions from January 2009 to June 2011 was performed. Patient demographics, ISS, early shock, injury type, timing to OR, blood loss and transfusions, surgical management, infections, EC fistulas, enteric leaks, LOS and mortality were compared. RESULTS: Demographics - There was 3866 blunt admissions and 966 penetrating admissions to our level II trauma centre (Total n=4832) during this interval. The final study group comprised n=131 patients treated for intestinal injuries. Blunt n=54 (BI) vs. penetrating (PI) n=77. Age was similar between the groups: (BI 34 SD 12 vs. PI 30 SD 12). Comorbid conditions were similar as were ED hypotension and blood transfusions. Blunt mechanisms had higher ISS; BI (20 SD 14) vs. PI (16 SD 12), p=0.08 and organ specific injury scales were higher in blunt injuries. Operative Management - Time to operation was higher in BI: (500 SD 676min vs. PI 110 SD 153min, p=0.01). The use of an open abdomen technique was higher for BI: n=19 (35%) vs. PI: n=5 (6%), p=<0.001, as well as delayed intestinal repair in damage control cases. Outcomes - Anastomotic leaks were more prevalent in BI: n=4 (7%) vs. PI: n=2 (3%), p=0.38. Enteric fistulas were: (BI n=8 (15%), vs. PI n=2 (3%), p=0.02). Surgical site infections and other nosocomial infections were: (BI n=11 (20%) vs. PI n=4 (5%), p=0.02), (BI n=11 (20%) vs. PI n=2 (3%), p=0.002), respectively. Hospital and ICU LOS was: (BI=20 SD 14 vs. PI=11 SD 11, p=0.001), (BI=10 SD 10 vs. PI=5 SD 5, p=0.01) respectively. These differences were reflected in higher hospital charges in BI. CONCLUSIONS: Blunt and penetrating intestinal injury patterns have high injury severity. Significant operative delays occurred in the blunt injury group as well as, anastomotic failures, enteric fistulas, nosocomial infections, and higher cost. These features underscore the complexity of blunt injury patterns and warrant vigilant injury recognition to improve outcomes.