You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 133 No. 3, March 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (11)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Surgery, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Open Pelvic Fracture and Fecal Diversion

Ronald K. Woods, MD, PhD; Grant O'Keefe, MD, MPH; Peter Rhee, MD, MPH; M. L. Chip Routt, Jr, MD; Ronald V. Maier, MD

Arch Surg. 1998;133:281-286.

Background  Mandatory fecal diversion has been advocated as an appropriate measure to prevent infection in the clinical setting of an open pelvic fracture. However, the efficacy of this practice has not been verified by prospective investigation and has received only inconsistent support from retrospective analyses.

Objective  To determine whether fecal diversion is associated with a substantially lower incidence of abdominopelvic infectious complications in patients with open pelvic fractures.

Design  Case-control study.

Setting  University-based tertiary care, level I trauma center.

Methods  The current study reviews our experience with 60 cases admitted from 1987 to 1993 to Harborview Medical Center, a regional level I trauma center. Data collected on each patient included age, sex, Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, initial heart rate and systolic blood pressure, location and severity of wound, fracture pattern, pelvic stability, time to open reduction internal fixation or external fixation, mortality, use of fecal diversion, and incidence and location of infection. Review of the literature produced an additional 186 patients amenable to analysis.

Results  Fecal diversion was performed in 19 patients, 5 (26%) of whom experienced subsequent abdominopelvic infectious morbidity. Of the remaining 41 patients, 7 patients (17%) experienced infectious complications. The 2 groups (diversion vs no diversion) were comparable with regard to relevant demographic and clinical characteristics of injury severity. Combining the present series with those reported by others gave a composite series of 246 patients. For the composite series, diversion was performed in 70% of patients. Infection developed in 27% of patients who underwent diversion vs 29% in patients who did not. In the present series, only mechanical instability was determined by stepwise logistic regression to be significantly associated with pelvic infection. This association was not altered by diversion status.

Conclusions  Diversion of the fecal stream to protect open pelvic fractures is not associated with a lower incidence of abdominopelvic infectious complications. Diversion may offer protection to a select group of patients with extensive soft tissue injury or posterior wounds. Mechanical instability was independently associated with infection.


From the Departments of Surgery (Drs Woods, O'Keefe, Rhee, and Maier) and Orthopedics (Dr Routt), Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle.



THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Major Pelvic Fractures
Frakes and Evans
Crit Care Nurse 2004;24:18-30.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.