Observational studyBMC surgery2025
Factors influencing surgical management and outcomes of colonic trauma: a prospective observational study at three hospitals in Sana'a City, Yemen.
Observational study in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonic trauma is a major clinical challenge particularly in resource-constrained conflict settings. The optimal surgical management remains debated. This study evaluated the factors influencing the surgical approach and the associated outcomes of colonic trauma in Yemen.
methodsWe conducted a prospective observational cohort study from May 2020 to April 2021, enrolling 90 consecutive patients with traumatic colonic injuries at three hospitals in Sana’a City. We collected data on patient demographics, injury characteristics (including AAST Colon Injury Scale grade), and postoperative outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed to compare patients managed with primary repair and colostomy.
resultsPrimary repair was performed in 74 patients (82.2%) and colostomy was performed in 16 patients (17.8%). The decision to perform colostomy was significantly associated with gunshot wounds (P = 0.002), severe fecal contamination (P < 0.001), and high-grade AAST injuries (P < 0.001). Although there was no statistically significant difference in the overall mortality (5.4% for primary repair vs. 12.5% for colostomy; P = 0.279), procedure-specific morbidity was profound. The anastomotic leak rate in the subgroup that underwent resection with primary anastomosis was 55.6%. Furthermore, stoma-related complications affected 50% of patients in the colostomy group.
conclusionPrimary repair is the predominant strategy for treating colonic trauma in this conflicting setting, and colostomy is reserved for high-risk patients. However, our findings revealed two critical context-specific dangers: an alarming failure rate for primary anastomosis in severe injuries, and a substantial morbidity burden from stoma formation. These results suggest that when a simple primary suture is not feasible, a damage-control approach with an end colostomy may be the safest option in an austere surgical environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.