2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The utility of presacral drainage in penetrating rectal injuries in adult and pediatric patients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Penetrating rectal/perineal injuries occurred in children with ages ranging between 5-13 years (mean nine years), with slight male predominance 17 . All of the cases treated with repair with either diverting colostomy (83%) or not (17%); this selection governs by assessment after anesthesia and proctoscopy; this is generally matching the general practice in several studies 18,19 . Although Ameh EA, from Nigeria, proposed a successful standard treatment with diversion for all cases 20 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Penetrating rectal/perineal injuries occurred in children with ages ranging between 5-13 years (mean nine years), with slight male predominance 17 . All of the cases treated with repair with either diverting colostomy (83%) or not (17%); this selection governs by assessment after anesthesia and proctoscopy; this is generally matching the general practice in several studies 18,19 . Although Ameh EA, from Nigeria, proposed a successful standard treatment with diversion for all cases 20 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Distal rectal wash and presacral drainage are now obsolete being of no definite advantage. 22,23 Likewise, bladder sphincter or urethral injury requires urinary diversion in the form of suprapubic cystostomy. Some, as in our present study, later needed percutaneous nephrostomy due to a high output vesico-cutaneous and vesico-rectal fistula respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, the utility of distal rectal washout appeared minimal or nonexistent, 8,37,38 and it gradually fell out of favor. Contemporary studies began to question the utility of presacral drainage and failed to demonstrate a clear benefit from the intervention 39–41 . An RCT of 48 patients with penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries published in 1998 showed no impact on infectious complications from presacral drainage and recommended the technique be abandoned 42 .…”
Section: Other Areas Of Controversymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contemporary studies began to question the utility of presacral drainage and failed to demonstrate a clear benefit from the intervention. [39][40][41] An RCTof 48 patients with penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries published in 1998 showed no impact on infectious complications from presacral drainage and recommended the technique be abandoned. 42 An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline on nondestructive penetrating extraperitoneal injuries recommended against the routine use of distal rectal washout or presacral drainage.…”
Section: Presacral Drainage and Distal Rectal Washoutmentioning
confidence: 99%