Fecal diversion for penetrating colon injuries--still the established treatment.
OBJECTIVE
An analysis of the existing literature on primary repair of colon injuries was undertaken to determine if there is sufficient evidence that this approach is superior to fecal diversion.


METHODS
After a thorough literature search, three prospectively randomized studies comparing primary repair with fecal diversion in the management of colon injuries were identified. A variety of factors were examined, including the number of patients in each study arm, morbidity rates, as well as exclusion criteria. An analysis was performed to determine the number of patients required to establish statistical superiority of one procedure over the other.


RESULTS
Pooling of the data contained in the aforementioned reports does not provide sufficient statistical power to support the superiority of primary repair of colon injuries. To demonstrate a 5 percent difference between the two approaches, a prospective, randomized study consisting of 200 patients in each arm is necessary.


CONCLUSIONS
The present literature does not support a statistically valid advantage of primary repair over fecal diversion in the management of traumatic colon injuries.
Ryan
M
M
Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Dutta
S
S
Masri
L
L
Ker
R
R
Goes
R
R
Anthone
G
G
Ortega
A
A
Beart
R W
RW
D003106:Colon / Q000293:injuries* / Q000601:surgery; D003125:Colostomy; D006801:Humans; D008722:Methods; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D014950:Wounds, Penetrating / Q000601:surgery*