Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 5, 2026

Murine Ileocolic Bowel Resection with Primary Anastomosis
Published on: October 29, 2014
Rectal Injury After Foreign Body Insertion: Secondary Analysis From the AAST Contemporary Management of Rectal
Morgan Schellenberg1, Carlos V R Brown2, Marc D Trust1
1LAC+USC Medical Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Background:
Retained rectal foreign bodies are a common but incompletely studied problem. This study defined the epidemiology, injury severity, and outcomes after rectal injuries following foreign body insertion.
Methods:
Twenty-two level I trauma centers retrospectively identified all patients sustaining a rectal injury in this AAST multi-institutional trial (2005-2014). Only patients injured by foreign body insertion were included in this secondary analysis. Exclusion criteria were death before rectal injury management or ≤48 h of admission. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Study groups were defined as partial thickness (AAST grade I) versus full thickness (AAST grades II-V) injuries. Subgroup analysis was performed by management strategy (nonoperative versus operative).
Results:
After exclusions, 33 patients were identified. Mean age was 41 y (range 18-57), and 85% (n = 28) were male. Eleven (33%) had full thickness injuries and 22 (67%) had partial thickness injuries, of which 14 (64%) were managed nonoperatively and 8 (36%) operatively (proximal diversion alone [n = 3, 14%]; direct repair with proximal diversion [n = 2, 9%]; laparotomy without rectal intervention [n = 2, 9%]; and direct repair alone [n = 1, 5%]). Subgroup analysis of outcomes after partial thickness injury demonstrated significantly shorter hospital length of stay (2 ± 1; 2 [1-5] versus 5 ± 2; 4 [2-8] d, P = 0.0001) after nonoperative versus operative management.
Conclusions:
Although partial thickness rectal injuries do not require intervention, difficulty excluding full thickness injuries led some surgeons in this series to manage partial thickness injuries operatively. This was associated with significantly longer hospital length of stay. Therefore, we recommend nonoperative management after a retained rectal foreign body unless full thickness injury is conclusively identified.
More Related Videos
12:45Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022
07:22Surgical Robot-Assisted Transanal Specimen Extraction Radical Sigmoidectomy Without an Auxiliary Abdominal Incision
Published on: June 13, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Inflammatory Bowel Disease V: Surgical Management
Here are some common surgical interventions for IBD:
Assessment of the Rectum and Anus
Rectal Inspection
Begin by inspecting the perianal and anal areas for color, texture, rashes,...
Esophageal Perforation-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management
Clinical Manifestations:
Appendicitis-II: Diagnostic Studies and Management
Diagnosing Appendicitis
It requires a multifaceted approach, starting with a detailed physical examination to pinpoint the location and nature of the pain and identify any associated symptoms. Laboratory tests play a crucial role. A complete Blood Count (CBC) typically reveals leukocytosis (an increased number of...