Journals / Ulusal Travma Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of primary colonic anastomosis and colostomy in experimental localized fecal peritonitis

Deneysel lokalize fekal peritonitte primer kolon anastomozu ile kolostominin karşılaştırılması

Pages
160–162
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The 15 days survival was 71.4 % for the colostomy group and 78.5 % for the anastomosis group (p=0.31) Conclusion: If the injured or perforated colon is surrounded by the organs and so the generalized peritonitis is avoided, primary anastomosis would have similar results with colostomy despite fecal contamination and prolonged intervention time.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: To investigate the appropriate surgical method that should be selected in the localized fecal peritonitis due to colonic injuries with 24 hours delay.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Colonic injuries were performed in 35 rats and the repairs were carried out after 24 hours.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The 15 days survival was 71.4 % for the colostomy group and 78.5 % for the anastomosis group (p=0.31) Conclusion: If the injured or perforated colon is surrounded by the organs and so the generalized peritonitis is avoided, primary anastomosis would have similar results with colostomy despite fecal contamination and prolonged intervention time.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Peritonit · Kolostomi · Yaralar ve yaralanmalar

Abstract

Background: To investigate the appropriate surgical method that should be selected in the localized fecal peritonitis due to colonic injuries with 24 hours delay. Methods: Colonic injuries were performed in 35 rats and the repairs were carried out after 24 hours. Seven rats (%20) died of generalized peritonitis in this period. The remaining 28 rats in which fecal peritonitis were localized by surrounding organs, were randomized in two groups: colostomy (n=14) and primary anastomosis (n=14). Intraabdominal complications and 15 days mortality were assessed. Results: The groups had similar results according to intraabdominal complications. The 15 days survival was 71.4 % for the colostomy group and 78.5 % for the anastomosis group (p=0.31) Conclusion: If the injured or perforated colon is surrounded by the organs and so the generalized peritonitis is avoided, primary anastomosis would have similar results with colostomy despite fecal contamination and prolonged intervention time.

Özet

Amaç: Yirmidört saat gecikme ile müdahale edilen kolon yaralanmalarında, fekal kontaminasyon lokalize kalmış ise hangi cerrahi tedavi metodu tercih edilmelidir. Gereç ve yöntem: Otuzbeş sıçanda kolon yaralanması oluşturuldu ve 24 saat beklendi. Yedi sıçan (%20) bu sürede yaygın peritonitten öldü. Yirmisekiz sıçanda ise yaralanma bölgesini çevre dokular sınırlandırdı. Bu denekler randomize olarak 14’lü iki gruba ayrıldı. Bir gruba uç kolostomi yapılırken, diğerine primer anastomoz yapıldı. İntraabdominal komplikasyonlar ve 15 günlük mortaliteler incelendi. Bulgular: İntraabdominal komplikasyonlar açısından iki grup arasında fark yoktu. Onbeş günlük yaşam süresi kolostomi grubunda %71.4 iken, primer anastomoz grubunda %78.5 idi (p=0.31). Sonuçlar: Sıçanlarda yaralı veya perfore kolon alanının çevresi diğer organlarla sınırlandırılmış ve yaygın peritonit engellenmiş ise fekal kontaminasyon ve gecikmiş onarım süresine rağmen primer anastomoz kolostomi ile aynı sonuçları vermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYAALP, C., BALKAN, M., AYDIN, C., ÖNER, K. (2003). Comparison of primary colonic anastomosis and colostomy in experimental localized fecal peritonitis. Ulusal Travma Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 160–162. https://ajindex.com/articles/324959

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Bartizar JF, Boyd DR. A critical review of management of 392 colonic and rectal injuries. Dis Colon Rectum. 1974; 17: 313-318
  2. Garfinkle SE, Cohen SE, Matolo NM, et al. Civilian colonic injuries: Changing concepts of management. Arch Surg. 1974; 109: 402-404
  3. Kickpatrick JR. Injuries of the colon. Surg Clin North Am. 1977; 57: 67-76
  4. Lucas CE, Ledgerwood AM. Management of the injured colon. Curr Surg. 1986; 43: 190-193
  5. Burch JM, Brock JC, Gevirtzman L, et al. The injured colon. Ann.Surg. 1986; 203: 701-711
  6. Hicks TC. Other Conditions. In: Beck DE, ed. Handbook of Colorectal Surgery. St.Louise: Quality Medical Publishing,;1997:444-449
  7. Kaya M, Bülbül M, Peker Y, ve arkadaşları. Kolon yaralanmaları (46 olgunun analizi). Kolon Rektum Hastalıkları Dergisi. 1991; 1: 20-25
  8. Ferrara JJ, Flint LM. Trauma to the Colon and Rectum. In: Zuidema GD, ed. Shacfelford’s Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. Vol:IV. Philadelphia: WB. Saunders Company;1996:39-47
  9. Cook A, Levine B, Rusting T. Traditional treatment of colon injuries. Arch Surg. 1984; 119: 591-596
  10. George SM, Fabian TC, Voelle GR. Primary repair of colon wounds: A prospective trial in nonselected patients. Ann Surg. 1988; 209: 728-733
  11. Shannon FL, Moore EE. Primary repair of the colon: When is it a safe alternative? Surgery. 1985; 98: 851- 857
  12. George SM, Fabian TC. Management of perforating colon trauma: Randomization between primary closure and exteriorization. Ann Surg. 1979; 190: 430-436
  13. Umbach TW, Dorazio RA. Primary resection and anastomosis for perforated left colon lesions. Am Surg. 1999;65:931-933
  14. Taheri PA, Ferrara JJ, Johnson CE, et al. A convincing case for primary repair of penetrating colon injuries. Am J Surg. 1993; 166: 39-44
  15. Kılıçturgay S, Şavkın B, İrgil C, ve arkadaşları. Deneysel olarak oluşturulan izole kolon yaralanmalarının primer onarım ile tedavisinde süre, anatomik lokalizasyon ve fekal kontaminasyonun etkileri. Kolon Rektum Hastalıkları Dergisi. 1993; 3: 124-130
  16. Thal ER, Yeary EC. Morbidity of colostomy closure following colon trauma. J Trauma. 1980;20:287-290
  17. Uzar A, Güleç B, Kayahan C, ve arkadaşları. Yara balistiği 1: Kalıcı ve geçici yara boşluğu (kavite) etkileri. Ulus Travma Derg. 1998;4:234-239.