Discussion Although there are similarities between I-BET151 colonic injuries and rectal ones, there are also differences which are unique to the rectum. Approximately 80% of rectal injuries are attributable to

firearms and less than 3% are secondary to stab or impalement etiologies. Less than 10% of rectal injuries are blunt by nature as a result of falls, motor vehicle accidents or pelvic fractures [1]. While the management of rectal injuries has changed over the last few years, optimal treatment remains a matter of great debate. The anorectal avulsion is a particular case of rectal injuries. It’s a very rare rectal trauma. After reviewing the literature, we found out that the first case of post traumatic anorectal avulsion was reported in 1965 by Mathieson et al. [2]. During the following years, only few case reports were described (Table 1) [3–6]. In this kind of lesions, the FHPI solubility dmso anus and sphincter no longer join the perineum and are pulled upward and thus ventrally follow levator ani muscles. In addition, their treatment is controversial and not standardized [7]. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory involving general surgeons, anesthetists and rehabilitators [8, 9]. The main difficulties encountered when treating these lesions are: to prevent sepsis and keep good anal sphincter functions at the same time. Management strategies described in the literature

include AZD3965 datasheet Diverting sigmoidostomy, presacral drainage, direct suture repair of the rectal laceration and irrigation of the rectum. In 1989, Burch et al. [10] recommended fecal diversion and presacral drainage for rectal injury management. The primary repair of a rectal lesion should be always tried if local conditions allow it. This was the case of our patient in which direct suture was difficult to perform but was still possible. Presacral drainage is believed to prevent perirectal infections due to for fecal contamination and has been used widely to reduce abscess formation in extraperitoneal rectal trauma.

This evidence derives mainly by war injury [7], but some authors [9, 11, 12] demonstrated no difference in infection rates associated with civilian rectal trauma caused by low velocity injury. Diverting colostomy has been demonstrated safe and effective in reducing the infection rate associated with rectal trauma 8 and a valid tool to perform rectal wash-out. However, in a study by Gonzales [13], fourteen patients suffering from non-destructive penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries were treated without fecal diversion or direct suture repair. Infectious complications didn’t occur in any of these patients. Furthermore, Navsaria and colleagues concluded from their retrospective review that extraperitoneal rectal injuries caused by low-velocity penetrating trauma could be treated only by fecal diversion [9].