Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2008
Colonic trauma: indications for diversion vs. repair.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
DuBose Joe
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The management of colonic trauma has evolved considerably over the past several decades. An appreciation of best-evidence practices is paramount to the optimal management of these injuries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review of pertinent clinical literature regarding the management of colonic trauma was performed.
RESULTS: Based on available level I evidence, primary repair of all colorectal injuries should be attempted, irrespective of associated risk factors. Diversion should only be considered if the colonic tissue itself is deemed inappropriate for repair, as in the setting of prohibitive edema or questionable perfusion of the tissues. Diversion does remain the standard of care for the management of extra-peritoneal rectal injuries, although this practice is under active investigation.
CONCLUSION: Level 1 evidence has failed to demonstrate that routine proximal diversion, once considered the standard of care for the treatment of all colorectal trauma, affords benefit for victims of the injuries. While utilization of these practices may prove beneficial in select circumstances, the routine utilization of proximal diversion for the treatment of colorectal injuries is unwarranted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review of pertinent clinical literature regarding the management of colonic trauma was performed.
RESULTS: Based on available level I evidence, primary repair of all colorectal injuries should be attempted, irrespective of associated risk factors. Diversion should only be considered if the colonic tissue itself is deemed inappropriate for repair, as in the setting of prohibitive edema or questionable perfusion of the tissues. Diversion does remain the standard of care for the management of extra-peritoneal rectal injuries, although this practice is under active investigation.
CONCLUSION: Level 1 evidence has failed to demonstrate that routine proximal diversion, once considered the standard of care for the treatment of all colorectal trauma, affords benefit for victims of the injuries. While utilization of these practices may prove beneficial in select circumstances, the routine utilization of proximal diversion for the treatment of colorectal injuries is unwarranted.