Primary repair of colon injuries: a prospective randomized study.

Due to the results of a 6-year experience with civilian penetrating colon injuries at Mount Carmel/Grace Hospital, in Detroit, Michigan, which had favored primary repair of colon injuries, a prospective randomized study was performed. Seventy-one patients with penetrating colon injuries were entered in a prospective randomized study. Forty-three patients were treated with primary repair or resection and anastomosis, and 28 patients were treated with diversion. The average Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index score was 25.5 for the primary repair and 23.4 for the diversion groups. The majority of injuries as assessed by the Colon Injury Score (CIS) for the primary repair group were grades 2 (58%) and 3 (28%). The diversion group predominantly had grades 2 (64%) and 3 (25%). There was no significant difference between the two groups. There were 8 (19%) patients with colon and noncolon-related complications in the primary repair group, and 10 (36%) patients with colon, noncolon, and colostomy-related complications in the diversion group. In addition, there were 2 (7%) patients with complications following colostomy reversal. Independent risk factors for adverse outcomes were compared and used to calculate the probability for adverse outcomes with respect to the mode of treatment. The probability for adverse outcomes was statistically greater in the diversion group. An analysis was also made within the primary repair group comparing the subgroups of primary repair with, and without, resection of colon. It appears that the primary repair with resection of colon may have fewer complications; however, this conclusion is based on a statistically insufficient sample size. The authors contend that primary repair or resection with anastomosis is the method of choice for treatment of all penetrating colon injuries in the civilian population despite any associated risk factors for adverse outcomes.

Practical approach to laparotomy for staging in the management of lymphomas.

This study was designed to delineate the role of laparotomy for staging in the management of lymphomas and to determine the accuracy of nonsurgical staging procedures. Fifty-four untreated patients with diagnoses of Hodgkin's disease or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma had extensive physical, laboratory, roentgenologic, scintigraphic, nonsurgical and surgical staging evaluation. Forty-five out of 54 patients had clinical Stage I and II disease; clinical Stage IV patients were excluded. One out of eight enlarged spleens, 12 out of 46 normal spleens, none of four enlarged livers and four out of 50 normal livers were positive at laparotomy. None of the preoperative needle biopsies of the liver and iliac crest was positive for lymphoma. The pathologic stage was advanced in six out of 25 of clinical Stage I, six out of 20 Stage II and two out of nine of Stage III. 67Ga scanning and lymphography were accurate in 16 out of 30 and 24 out of 45 patients, respectively. There was no mortality, but morbidity was limited to atelectasis, thrombophlebitis and subphrenic abscess in three patients, respectively. Only when treatment regimen is stage-dependent and only if nonsurgical staging procedures have reliably failed to rule out disseminated disease, then laparotomy for staging indicated in localized lymphomas. Laparotomy for staging should not be done when the treatment plan is not altered by staging data or when there is a medical contraindication or when evidence of disseminated disease has been reliably and consistently obtained by nonsurgical methods as needle biopsies of the liver and bone, lymphography, scintigraphic studies and laparoscopy.