English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the treatment methods of ostomy and primary repair in rectal injuries. A total of 63 patients with rectal injury who had been treated at Dicle University Hospital between 2000 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. To determine the outcomes of the treatment methods, the patients were divided into 2 groups (ostomy group: patients who underwent ostomy plus primary repair; repair group: patients who only underwent primary repair) and compared. The patients included 51 men and 12 women. A total of 44 patients underwent ostomy, whereas 19 patients underwent primary repair. No morbidity was detected in either group with grade II intraperitoneal rectal injury. The outcomes of the patients with grade II intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal rectal injury were similar. In the treatment of patients with low-grade rectal injuries, primary repair can be preferred to ostomy.

Is Ostomy Still Mandatory in Rectal Injuries?