Limited role of barium enema examination preceding colostomy closure in trauma patients

Juan E Sola, T. G. Buchman, J. S. Bender, F. R. Lewis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Whether trauma patients should undergo barium enema (BE) examination of the colon prior to colostomy closure has recently been questioned. To ascertain the utility of BE and its impact on postoperative course in this patient population, we reviewed 86 trauma patients who underwent colostomy closure during a 12-year period at our institution. There were 82 males and four females with an average age of 28 years. Ninety-five percent of the injuries were the result of penetrating trauma. Sixteen patients had rectal injuries. Fifteen of these had BE greater than 6 weeks post-trauma and all showed healing of the injury. Of the 70 patients with colonic injuries, 43 (group 1) had BE prior to colostomy closure. Ninety-eight percent (n = 42) of these studies were negative. The only positive finding did not affect the planned surgical procedure. Group 2 (n = 27) did not have a BE prior to colostomy closure. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between group 1 (18.6%) and group 2 (29.6%). We conclude that BE prior to colostomy closure for colonic injuries yields little useful information and does not affect the morbidity rate prior to colostomy closure. Its routine usage should be abandoned. The role of barium enema in assessing rectal injury status is less clear because of the small number in our series, but probably offers no advantage over proctoscopy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)245-247
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Trauma
Volume36
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jan 1 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Colostomy
Wounds and Injuries
Proctoscopy
Barium Enema
Colon
Morbidity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Limited role of barium enema examination preceding colostomy closure in trauma patients. / Sola, Juan E; Buchman, T. G.; Bender, J. S.; Lewis, F. R.

In: Journal of Trauma, Vol. 36, No. 2, 01.01.1994, p. 245-247.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sola, JE, Buchman, TG, Bender, JS & Lewis, FR 1994, 'Limited role of barium enema examination preceding colostomy closure in trauma patients', Journal of Trauma, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 245-247.
Sola, Juan E ; Buchman, T. G. ; Bender, J. S. ; Lewis, F. R. / Limited role of barium enema examination preceding colostomy closure in trauma patients. In: Journal of Trauma. 1994 ; Vol. 36, No. 2. pp. 245-247.
@article{6572a4316fcc4f11a43dcda9c3d1af08,
title = "Limited role of barium enema examination preceding colostomy closure in trauma patients",
abstract = "Whether trauma patients should undergo barium enema (BE) examination of the colon prior to colostomy closure has recently been questioned. To ascertain the utility of BE and its impact on postoperative course in this patient population, we reviewed 86 trauma patients who underwent colostomy closure during a 12-year period at our institution. There were 82 males and four females with an average age of 28 years. Ninety-five percent of the injuries were the result of penetrating trauma. Sixteen patients had rectal injuries. Fifteen of these had BE greater than 6 weeks post-trauma and all showed healing of the injury. Of the 70 patients with colonic injuries, 43 (group 1) had BE prior to colostomy closure. Ninety-eight percent (n = 42) of these studies were negative. The only positive finding did not affect the planned surgical procedure. Group 2 (n = 27) did not have a BE prior to colostomy closure. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between group 1 (18.6{\%}) and group 2 (29.6{\%}). We conclude that BE prior to colostomy closure for colonic injuries yields little useful information and does not affect the morbidity rate prior to colostomy closure. Its routine usage should be abandoned. The role of barium enema in assessing rectal injury status is less clear because of the small number in our series, but probably offers no advantage over proctoscopy.",
author = "Sola, {Juan E} and Buchman, {T. G.} and Bender, {J. S.} and Lewis, {F. R.}",
year = "1994",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "245--247",
journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
issn = "2163-0755",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Limited role of barium enema examination preceding colostomy closure in trauma patients

AU - Sola, Juan E

AU - Buchman, T. G.

AU - Bender, J. S.

AU - Lewis, F. R.

PY - 1994/1/1

Y1 - 1994/1/1

N2 - Whether trauma patients should undergo barium enema (BE) examination of the colon prior to colostomy closure has recently been questioned. To ascertain the utility of BE and its impact on postoperative course in this patient population, we reviewed 86 trauma patients who underwent colostomy closure during a 12-year period at our institution. There were 82 males and four females with an average age of 28 years. Ninety-five percent of the injuries were the result of penetrating trauma. Sixteen patients had rectal injuries. Fifteen of these had BE greater than 6 weeks post-trauma and all showed healing of the injury. Of the 70 patients with colonic injuries, 43 (group 1) had BE prior to colostomy closure. Ninety-eight percent (n = 42) of these studies were negative. The only positive finding did not affect the planned surgical procedure. Group 2 (n = 27) did not have a BE prior to colostomy closure. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between group 1 (18.6%) and group 2 (29.6%). We conclude that BE prior to colostomy closure for colonic injuries yields little useful information and does not affect the morbidity rate prior to colostomy closure. Its routine usage should be abandoned. The role of barium enema in assessing rectal injury status is less clear because of the small number in our series, but probably offers no advantage over proctoscopy.

AB - Whether trauma patients should undergo barium enema (BE) examination of the colon prior to colostomy closure has recently been questioned. To ascertain the utility of BE and its impact on postoperative course in this patient population, we reviewed 86 trauma patients who underwent colostomy closure during a 12-year period at our institution. There were 82 males and four females with an average age of 28 years. Ninety-five percent of the injuries were the result of penetrating trauma. Sixteen patients had rectal injuries. Fifteen of these had BE greater than 6 weeks post-trauma and all showed healing of the injury. Of the 70 patients with colonic injuries, 43 (group 1) had BE prior to colostomy closure. Ninety-eight percent (n = 42) of these studies were negative. The only positive finding did not affect the planned surgical procedure. Group 2 (n = 27) did not have a BE prior to colostomy closure. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between group 1 (18.6%) and group 2 (29.6%). We conclude that BE prior to colostomy closure for colonic injuries yields little useful information and does not affect the morbidity rate prior to colostomy closure. Its routine usage should be abandoned. The role of barium enema in assessing rectal injury status is less clear because of the small number in our series, but probably offers no advantage over proctoscopy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028218059&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028218059&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8114145

AN - SCOPUS:0028218059

VL - 36

SP - 245

EP - 247

JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

SN - 2163-0755

IS - 2

ER -