Rectal trauma: management based on anatomic distinctions

• Published in: The American surgeon Vol. 64; no. 12; pp. 1136 - 1141
• Main Authors: McGrath, V, Fabian, T C, Croce, M A, Minard, G, Pritchard, F E
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC 01.12.1998
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Colostomy; Drainage; Excretory system; Female; Humans; Injuries; Male; Middle Aged; Multiple Trauma - surgery; Rectum - injuries; Rectum - surgery; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Wounds, Gunshot - surgery; Wounds, Penetrating - surgery
• ISSN: 0003-1348; 1555-9823

Principles of rectal wound management, including routine diversion, injury repair, presacral drainage and distal washout, evolved from World War II and the Vietnam conflict and have been questioned in recent years. We believe significant confusion arises because of imprecise definition of injury location relative to retroperitoneal involvement. Our 5-year experience with penetrating rectal injuries at a Level I trauma center was analyzed. Injuries to the anterior and lateral surfaces of the upper two-thirds of the rectum were classified as intraperitoneal (IP, serosalized), and those of the posterior surface extraperitoneal (EP, no serosa); injuries to the lower one-third were EP. A total of 58 injuries were managed (92% gunshot wounds). Of these, 16 were IP, and 42 had some EP component. Ten patients underwent repair without diversion (6 IP, 4 EP); there were no leaks. Ten septic complications occurred in the remaining population: 2 necrotizing fasciitis, 5 abdominal abscess, and 3 presacral infections (PIs) (2 presacral abscesses and 1 wound tract infection). PI is the only complication that can be specifically associated with EP rectal injuries relative to management; as associated injury confounds interpretation of the other complications. The operative management in the 38 patients with diverted EP wounds with respect to presacral infection (PI) demonstrated the following: repair injury (n = 10), 0 PI versus no repair (n = 28), 3 PI (P = 0.55); washout (n = 33), 2 PI versus no washout (n = 5), 1 PI (P = 0.35); presacral drain (n = 30), 1 PI versus no drain (n = 8), 2 PI (P = 0.11). We conclude that most IP injuries can be managed with primary repair. EP wounds to the upper two-thirds of the rectum should usually be repaired. EP wounds to the lower one-third, which are explored and repaired, do not require drainage. EP wounds that are not explored should be managed with presacral drainage to minimize the incidence of presacral abscess.