You will be provided with the titles and abstracts of a collection of medical RCT reports studying a clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of an intervention on some medical outcome. Please write a few sentences synthesizing the findings of these reports, which could serve as a conclusion section for a systematic review article. Your response should not include any other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
Further evaluation of colostomy in penetrating colon injury.
Abstract 1:
Our objective was to compare, in a randomized prospective format, complication rates associated with primary repair versus fecal diversion in penetrating colon injury. During a 72-month period, 181 patients with penetrating colon injuries were entered in a randomized prospective study at an urban Level I trauma center. After intraoperative identification of colon injuries, patients were randomized to a primary repair or a diversion group. Randomization was independent of previously identified risk factors, including severity of colon injury, presence of hypotension, blood loss, extent of fecal contamination, and time from injury to operation. Five patients initially entered in the study protocol were removed because they died in the immediate postoperative period (< 24 hours). One hundred seventy-six patients were studied, of which 89 were randomized to primary repair and 87 to diversion. The average age in the diversion group was 26.4 years and it was 28.0 years in the primary repair group (P > 0.05). The average Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index for the diversion group was 22.3, and it was 23.7 for the primary repair group (P > 0.05). There were 18 (21%) septic related complications in the diversion group and 16 (18%) in the primary repair group (P > .05). With respect to risk factors, complication rates were not higher in one study group versus the other. We conclude that, in the civilian population, all penetrating colon injuries should be managed with primary repair.


Title 2:
Randomized clinical trial to determine if delay from time of penetrating colonic injury precludes primary repair.
Abstract 2:
There is often a delay of more than 12 h in transferring patients with penetrating colonic injury from outlying hospitals to a regional referral centre. The aim of this prospective study was to determine whether primary suture of a penetrating colonic injury in the presence of delayed presentation, shock, peritoneal contamination or associated injuries leads to increased morbidity and mortality rates.
                Patients with penetrating colonic injuries were randomized to primary closure or colostomy. Patients were compared with regard to interval from injury to operation, associated injuries, duration of operation, postoperative complications and hospital stay.
                Two hundred and forty patients were seen over a 69-month period. The interval from injury to operation ranged from 3 to 56 h, and was similar in the two treatment groups. Postoperative complications were similar in the two groups but there were significant differences in operation time (mean(s.d.) 127.1(45.8) min for primary repair and 142.3(43.0) min for colostomy; P = 0.009) and length of hospital stay (mean (range) 9 (6-56) versus 26 (13-64) days respectively; P < 0.001).
                Delay from time of penetrating colonic injury is not a contraindication to primary repair. :


Title 3:
Management of perforating colon trauma: randomization between primary closure and exteriorization.
Abstract 3:
During a 44 month trial, 268 patients with wounds of the colon were entered into a prospective, randomized, nonblinded study. Consideration for primary closure demanded that: preoperative shock was never profound, blood loss was less than 20% of estimated normal volume, no more than two intra-abdominal organ systems had been injured, fecal contamination was minimal, operation was begun within eight hours, and wounds of colon and abdominal wall were never so destructive as to require resection. Once such criteria had been satisfied, colon wound management was dictated by last digit in the randomly assigned hospital number; odd indicated primary closure; even, exteriorization of the wound or primary closure with protection by a proximal vent. Results obtained in 139 determinant patients eligible for randomization revealed that primary closure (67 patients) had a lower infection rate of the incision (48% vs S7%, p > 0.05) and a still lower infection rate for the abdomen proper (15% vs 29%, p < 0.05) on comparison to the 72 patients with a randomized colostomy. Morbidity otherwise for the randomized colostomy was tenfold greater than if a primary closure had been performed. Average postoperative stay was six days longer (p < 0.01) if a colostomy had been created, exclusive of subsequent hospitalization for colostomy closure; while the total extra cost for management of the colon wound by colostomy was approximately $2,700.00. Although immediate mortalities were identical, one late death occurred following colostomy closure. These data not only confirm the safety of primary closure for colon wounds in selected cases, but also indicate that such should become the preferred method of treatment whenever specific criteria have been met.


Title 4:
Colorectal trauma: primary repair or anastomosis with intracolonic bypass vs. ostomy.
Abstract 4:
This prospective, randomized, controlled study was undertaken to compare primary repair or anastomosis with intracolonic bypass vs. ostomy in severe colon and intraperitoneal rectal injury. Patients were randomized at surgery following confirmation of injury. Data collected included demographics, mechanism and location of injury, trauma score (TS), injury severity score (ISS), penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI), complications, length of hospital stay, and hospital charges. Twenty-two patients were studied: 11 with intracolonic bypass and 11 controls. The experimental and control groups were statistically similar in demographics and mechanism of injury, severity of injury (TS = 13.8 vs. 12.8; ISS = 27.5 vs. 24.2; PATI = 40.5 vs. 35.0), and complication rate. Length of stay (12.2 days vs. 20.7 days) and charges $27,885 vs. $53,599) tended to be greater in controls, and the comparison did not include subsequent colostomy closure. This study supports intracolonic bypass as a safe alternative to ostomy in severe colon and intraperitoneal rectal trauma.


Title 5:
Management of penetrating colon injuries. A prospective randomized trial.
Abstract 5:
Fifty-six patients with penetrating colon injuries were entered into a randomized prospective study. Management of the colon injury was not dependent on the number of associated injuries, amount of fecal contamination, shock, or blood requirements. Twenty-eight patients were treated with primary repair or resection and anastomosis and 28 patients were treated by diversion (24 colostomy, 3 ileostomy, 1 jejunostomy). The average Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index score was 23.9 for the diversion group and 26 for the primary repair group. There were five (17.9%) septic-related complications in the diversion group. This included four intra-abdominal abscesses and one subcutaneous wound infection. There were six (21.4%) septic-related complications in the primary repair group. This included one wound infection, two positive blood cultures, and three intra-abdominal abscesses. There were no episodes of suture line failure in the primary repair/anastomosis group. The authors conclude that, independent of associated risk factors, primary repair or resection and anastomosis should be considered for treatment of all patients in the civilian population with penetrating colon wounds.


Title 6:
Primary repair of colon injuries: a prospective randomized study.
Abstract 6:
Due to the results of a 6-year experience with civilian penetrating colon injuries at Mount Carmel/Grace Hospital, in Detroit, Michigan, which had favored primary repair of colon injuries, a prospective randomized study was performed. Seventy-one patients with penetrating colon injuries were entered in a prospective randomized study. Forty-three patients were treated with primary repair or resection and anastomosis, and 28 patients were treated with diversion. The average Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index score was 25.5 for the primary repair and 23.4 for the diversion groups. The majority of injuries as assessed by the Colon Injury Score (CIS) for the primary repair group were grades 2 (58%) and 3 (28%). The diversion group predominantly had grades 2 (64%) and 3 (25%). There was no significant difference between the two groups. There were 8 (19%) patients with colon and noncolon-related complications in the primary repair group, and 10 (36%) patients with colon, noncolon, and colostomy-related complications in the diversion group. In addition, there were 2 (7%) patients with complications following colostomy reversal. Independent risk factors for adverse outcomes were compared and used to calculate the probability for adverse outcomes with respect to the mode of treatment. The probability for adverse outcomes was statistically greater in the diversion group. An analysis was also made within the primary repair group comparing the subgroups of primary repair with, and without, resection of colon. It appears that the primary repair with resection of colon may have fewer complications; however, this conclusion is based on a statistically insufficient sample size. The authors contend that primary repair or resection with anastomosis is the method of choice for treatment of all penetrating colon injuries in the civilian population despite any associated risk factors for adverse outcomes.
Meta-analysis of currently published randomized controlled trials favors primary repair over fecal diversion for penetrating colon injuries.