Skip to main content

Intraoperative Bowel Handling & Injury Management

Bowel injury may occur during access, adhesiolysis, bowel harvest or pelvic dissection. Management depends on injury depth and viability, anatomic location, contamination and the patient's physiology. Recognize and control an injury promptly, assess the adjacent bowel and mesentery, and involve a surgeon experienced in intestinal repair when needed. Much of the management evidence comes from trauma and general surgery; applying it to elective urinary reconstruction requires clinical judgment.[5]

Companion pages: Bowel Anastomosis, Reoperative Bowel Harvest, Viscera Retainer and Incisions & Closure.

Bowel Handling — Prevent Injury and Adhesion​

Gentle handling, moisture, hemostasis, preservation of blood supply and limiting foreign material are the core principles. The ASRM 2019 committee opinion supports meticulous technique but cautions that improvements in adhesion scores do not establish prevention of pain, infertility or bowel obstruction.[1]

PracticeApplication and limits
Plan access and exposureReview previous operations and imaging; enter away from expected dense adhesions when feasible. Minimally invasive access does not eliminate adhesions or enterotomy risk. In a Scottish retrospective cohort of 72,270 abdominal or pelvic operations, readmission directly related to adhesions within 5 years was 1.7% after laparoscopic and 4.3% after open surgery.[18]
Limit traction and desiccationUse moist protection and atraumatic instruments such as a Babcock or Cadiere. Avoid crushing or sustained traction on the bowel wall.
Dissect adhesions under direct visionChoose sharp or gentle blunt dissection according to the tissue plane. Dense bowel adhesions usually need controlled sharp dissection; no technique makes a poorly defined plane safe. A prospective abdominal-surgery cohort reported bowel injury in 50/475 adhesiolysis procedures (10.5%). No bowel defects occurred in operations without adhesiolysis, and mortality after adhesiolysis complicated by a bowel defect was 4/50 (8%) versus 7/425 (1.6%) after uncomplicated adhesiolysis.[2]
Use energy selectivelyMonopolar, bipolar and ultrasonic devices can all injure bowel. Keep activation and residual hot surfaces away from bowel, use the device's instructions, and inspect suspected contact sites. Experimental energy or cooling-time measurements do not define a universal human safety threshold.[8][10]
Reduce adhesion-promoting injuryPreserve perfusion, prevent desiccation, remove devitalized material when indicated, control bleeding and minimize lint or other foreign material.[1]
Protect bowel during closureKeep bowel clear of fascial bites and confirm removal of packs and protective devices. Temporary open-abdomen dressings require a protective visceral layer; foam or synthetic mesh must not directly contact exposed bowel.[3]

Adhesion Barriers​

Seprafilm is an adjunct to surgical technique indicated by its manufacturer for placement during abdominal or pelvic laparotomy; this IFU does not establish its effectiveness for laparoscopic placement.[16] Its labeling distinguishes reduction of adhesions and reoperation for adhesive small-bowel obstruction from prevention of all postoperative obstruction. Follow the indication and placement instructions.[1][16]

Fresh intestinal anastomosis

Do not wrap Seprafilm directly around a fresh anastomotic suture or staple line. This is a contraindication associated with increased leak-related events, and it is more than a reason for extra caution. Seprafilm is also contraindicated in patients with a history of hypersensitivity to Seprafilm or its components.[16] Its safety and effectiveness in frank abdominopelvic infection, ongoing inflammation or use with surgical mesh have not been evaluated in clinical studies; consult the current IFU.[16]

Iatrogenic Bowel Injury — Management Algorithm​

  1. Recognize and expose the injury. During laparoscopic entry, if the initial trocar penetrates bowel, leave it in place until the injured loop is located and inspected for a through-and-through defect or underlying injury.[27] Control spillage, assess depth, perfusion and mesenteric damage, and look for additional injuries.
  2. Assess physiology and contamination. Resuscitation, antimicrobial treatment when indicated and timely source control take priority over completing the planned reconstruction.
  3. Choose repair, resection with anastomosis or diversion. A viable, limited injury in a stable patient differs from devascularized bowel in shock. Primary repair is often appropriate; diversion is not mandatory for every enterotomy or episode of peritonitis.[5]

Serosal vs Full-Thickness Injury​

A superficial serosal abrasion is different from a muscular defect or enterotomy. Inspect the entire injured area; a limited serosal defect with intact viable deeper layers may require no closure, while a deeper partial-thickness defect may warrant seromuscular repair. Avoid imbrication that narrows the lumen or compromises perfusion. Orient any repair transversely, at a right angle to the lumen, and palpate the bowel after closure to confirm it has not narrowed. A deserosalization injury with intact mucosa and some muscularis is commonly closed in one layer with an imbricating Lembert stitch; for a full-thickness enterotomy, one described approach is to debride to fresh, viable edges and close in two layers, with an inner running full-thickness layer followed by an outer imbricating Lembert layer. Full-thickness injury needs definitive treatment, and thermal damage may extend beyond the visible surface.[4][5][9]

Small Bowel​

For a limited injury with healthy edges, primary closure can preserve bowel. Orient closure to maintain the lumen. WSES lists destructive injury with more than 50% disruption of the bowel circumference, along with mesenteric devascularization causing ischemia, as a contraindication to primary repair rather than resection.[5] Resection is appropriate for devascularization, destructive injury or multiple adjacent defects that cannot be repaired reliably. Anastomosis requires adequate perfusion and acceptable physiology; shock, ongoing transfusion or vasopressor needs, edema, contamination and the ability to close the abdomen influence whether it should be deferred or a stoma created.[5]

Trauma leak rates do not estimate risk after ileal conduit, augmentation or repeat bowel harvest. Neither hand-sewn nor stapled construction compensates for ischemia or tension; see Bowel Anastomosis.

Colon​

Primary repair is appropriate for many nondestructive injuries; resection with anastomosis can be appropriate for destructive injuries in selected patients. A 2025 EAST retrospective multicenter study of 2,022 AAST grade I and II colon injuries (1,314 primary repairs, 708 resections with anastomosis) associated resection with anastomosis with more infectious complications and a longer stay than primary repair. It supports avoiding unnecessary resection, but treatment selection and injury severity may confound the comparison.[6]

For destructive injuries, a single-center retrospective series of 101 patients requiring colon resection reported an 8.0% leak rate among those who received primary anastomosis at the index operation and no colon-related mortality; leaving the colon in discontinuity was an independent risk factor for mortality.[19] A meta-analysis of 14 studies (2,071 patients) found an overall leak rate of 4.63% after primary repair or anastomosis, and a higher leak rate in damage-control patients than in others (16.7% versus 3.2%).[20]

Diversion becomes more attractive when perfusion, physiology, tissue quality or the consequences of a leak make an anastomosis unsafe. The type of stoma depends on the injury and remaining bowel; a loop ostomy is not interchangeable with an end stoma in every circumstance. In a single-center retrospective study of 115 diverted patients with destructive colon injury, anastomosis with proximal loop diversion was associated with shorter reversal operative time (95 versus 245 minutes), shorter reversal stay (6 versus 10 days), and fewer reversal complications (0% versus 36%) than end colostomy among patients without a planned ventral hernia.[21] Because the initial operations differed, the comparison does not isolate the effect of stoma configuration.[5][21]

Rectum​

Anatomy First — Intraperitoneal vs Extraperitoneal​

Classify the injured surface relative to the peritoneal reflection. A simple upper-third or middle-third rule does not capture it. The upper rectum has anterior and lateral peritoneal coverage, the middle rectum anterior coverage, and the lower rectum none; the reflection varies by surface and patient. Mid-rectal injury may require operative assessment to establish whether an intraperitoneal component exists.[17]

In a retrospective AAST study of 785 patients at 22 centers, intraperitoneal injuries managed with proximal diversion had more abdominal complications than those managed without it (22% versus 10%), and diversion was not associated with improved outcomes.[13] An international survey of 280 surgeons found that 81% avoided routine colostomy for hemodynamically stable intraperitoneal colorectal injuries.[13][22]

Injury patternManagement considerations
Confirmed partial-thickness rectal injuryDoes not require the same operative pathway as a full-thickness injury. Ensure that full-thickness or evolving thermal injury has been excluded.[17]
Intraperitoneal full-thickness injuryGenerally follow colon-injury principles: primary repair or resection/anastomosis according to destruction and perfusion. Consider diversion selectively for adverse physiology, tissue quality or associated injury.[5][17]
Nondestructive penetrating extraperitoneal injuryEAST 2016 conditionally recommends proximal diversion, based on very-low-certainty evidence. The 2026 WSES trauma guideline identifies proximal diversion as the default for extraperitoneal rectal injury.[26] The WTA 2023 algorithm allows primary transanal repair without diversion for selected accessible nondestructive injuries; inaccessible injuries generally undergo diversion. These trauma frameworks require case-specific application to iatrogenic pelvic injury.[14][17]
Destructive or inaccessible extraperitoneal injuryProximal diversion is generally used. Extensive pelvic dissection solely to expose and close an otherwise inaccessible defect can add injury; specialist assessment determines whether additional repair/debridement is needed.[17]

Repair Technique​

Debride nonviable edges, maintain the lumen and obtain a secure closure without tension. A two-layer closure is commonly described, but no evidence supports one suture or layer recipe for every rectal injury. For the inner layer, starting at the lateral apices of the injury and running two sutures toward the middle secures the technically hardest part of the closure first, rather than starting centrally and working outward; this is established operative teaching, not a finding from a comparative study. For a suspected rectal defect, fill the pelvis with saline and insufflate the rectum through a probe or catheter to look for escaping bubbles; digital rectal examination can help define its extent.[25] Rigid or flexible proctoscopy can inspect the extraperitoneal rectum when direct examination does not define a suspected defect; evidence for this step comes from trauma patients.[17] During radical prostatectomy, close the rectal defect before completing the vesicourethral anastomosis.[25] Test the completed repair as appropriate and assess adjacent urinary or vaginal reconstruction. Transanal access may permit repair of selected low defects; accessibility and expertise matter.[17]

After rectal injury during prostatectomy or other GU surgery, vascularized tissue may be interposed between adjacent repairs when feasible. Yee and Ornstein described robotic repair with omental interposition in two cases; flap selection for RALP, cystectomy or AUS injury remains defect specific. Choose the flap for the actual defect and anatomy. A Martius flap is not a routine substitute for omentum in male pelvic surgery.[15]

Prior radiation, contamination or poor tissue quality can lower the threshold for diversion and vascularized coverage. They do not make every primary repair impossible. Decide with colorectal and reconstructive input. Radiation history alone is not an automatic indication.

Presacral Drainage and Distal Rectal Washout​

Do not add these routinely for penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injury. EAST recommendations are conditional; WTA similarly discourages routine use. In the AAST cohort, distal rectal washout (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.4–8.5) and presacral drainage (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1–6.1) were independently associated with abdominal complications.[13] Avoiding routine prophylactic presacral drainage does not mean leaving an established abscess or uncontrolled contamination undrained.[13][14][17]

Thermal / Electrosurgical Injuries​

Thermal injury may be occult and progress to delayed necrosis. A normal-looking surface immediately after contact does not exclude deeper damage. In a literature survey of 266 laparoscopic bowel perforations, 69% were not recognized at surgery and 50% were caused by electrocautery.[7] In ex vivo porcine jejunum, all samples receiving 3.8 J or more had visible burns, and as little as 10 J caused full-thickness burns; shielded instruments with active electrode monitoring leaked too little energy to burn.[8] In a porcine stomach model, the laparoscopic hook remained above 50 °C for at least 15 seconds after activation, and the authors advise no tissue contact for that interval; endoknives cooled in 4 seconds.[10] These experimental values explain the hazard, but neither a fixed joule limit nor a fixed cooling interval reliably defines safe contact across devices.

If thermal injury is suspected, inspect the affected segment and obtain experienced surgical assessment. Nonviable or uncertain full-thickness damage often requires excision or resection back to healthy tissue; simply oversewing a burn may leave progressive injury behind. The extent of treatment depends on depth, viability and mechanism, and it does not call for automatic segmental resection for every superficial contact.[4][9]

Recognizing Missed Injuries​

Escalate unexplained or worsening abdominal pain, distention, failure to recover bowel function, tachycardia, fever, abnormal leukocyte count, metabolic deterioration or sepsis. Either leukocytosis or leukopenia can occur; absence of fever or a normal initial test does not exclude injury. Bishoff's unrecognized laparoscopic perforations presented with severe single trocar-site pain, distention, diarrhea and leukopenia, followed by cardiopulmonary collapse from sepsis within 96 hours.[7] In a series of 32 patients reoperated within 30 days for a missed injury, the mean interval to reoperation was 5.3 days (range 1–13); adhesions, previous operations and a laparoscopic approach were the commonly documented factors. These series describe presentation over several days, not a safe period to wait.[11]

An unstable patient or one with generalized peritonitis needs urgent surgical evaluation and source control. A stable patient may undergo contrast-enhanced CT, serial examination and additional investigation according to the suspected site; persistent clinical concern warrants reassessment even after nondiagnostic imaging. Do not delay necessary exploration to obtain repeated tests.[5]

Damage Control and the Open Abdomen​

Damage-control surgery is for severe physiologic compromise or a specific need for staged source control or viability assessment. It is not the default response to a recognized enterotomy during an otherwise stable elective case. Control bleeding and contamination, leave bowel in discontinuity when immediate anastomosis is unsafe, and protect exposed viscera.[3][5]

WSES recommends re-exploration within 24–48 hours, sooner with instability or deterioration. At relook, reassess perfusion, resuscitation, contamination and abdominal closure; elapsed time alone does not make an anastomosis safe. Close the abdomen as soon as source control and physiology permit. The WSES bowel-injury guideline describes a delayed primary anastomosis as usually performed at the relook laparotomy within 48–72 hours, and it can be performed at the third or fourth relook if required.[3][5]

To reduce entero-atmospheric fistula risk, protect bowel from direct foam or mesh contact, avoid exposed anastomoses against the temporary closure, and pursue early closure when feasible. With an established fistula, isolate effluent, control sepsis and provide nutritional support. NPWT can assist wound and effluent management but does not itself establish fistula cure. Definitive reconstruction is delayed until the patient and abdomen are suitable; WSES advises postponing definitive entero-atmospheric fistula treatment for at least 6 months and until the patient and wound have healed.[3] In the selected ChimneyVAC series, 12 of 14 initial survivors underwent restoration of intestinal continuity at a median of 6 months after treatment.[12]

Reconstructive-Urology / Urogyn Implications​

  • Reoperative diversion or augmentation: obtain prior bowel and mesenteric details, preserve usable intestine and plan adequate time for adhesiolysis. Enterotomy risk varies with the operation and extent of adhesiolysis; in a prospective elective abdominal-surgery cohort, bowel defects occurred in 50/475 operations requiring adhesiolysis (10.5%).[2]
  • Enterotomies during adhesiolysis before a diversion: a common teaching practice is to mark each injury with a stitch as it occurs and defer repair until adhesiolysis is complete. The terminal ileum is both the segment most often adherent in the pelvis and the segment most often chosen for the conduit or reservoir, so the segment can then be chosen to include the injured bowel, or placed to exclude it, instead of repairing loops that will be resected anyway.
  • Sacrocolpopexy and pelvic dissection: protect adjacent sigmoid and small bowel, assess suspected energy contact, and reconsider implant or reconstruction plans if contamination occurs.
  • Radiated pelvic reconstruction: assess the actual bowel segment, mesentery and tissue quality; plan colorectal support and alternatives when repair is uncertain.
  • Recognized rectal injury: document location, depth, tissue quality, repair, testing and any interposition or diversion; communicate the postoperative monitoring plan explicitly. After rectal repair during radical prostatectomy, a review advises considering urethral catheterization for >2 weeks and removing the catheter only after a negative cystogram.[25]
  • Colon injury during percutaneous renal access (retrorenal colon during nephrostomy placement or another percutaneous tract): in percutaneous nephrolithotomy series, colonic injury is usually retroperitoneal and occurs in approximately 0.3–0.8% of procedures.[24] When colonic injury is suspected after percutaneous nephrolithotomy, a fluoroscopic or CT nephrostogram can show contrast outlining the colon.[24] For a stable retroperitoneal injury with a nephrostomy tube still traversing the colon, the cited review describes withdrawing that tube from the collecting system into the colonic lumen as a percutaneous colostomy drain and placing a separate ureteral stent for urinary drainage. It also describes intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics, bowel rest and parenteral nutrition, with colostography before staged tube removal.[24] This tube-based approach is unavailable after tubeless access or tube removal; those injuries require separate assessment. Recognition before tube removal is associated with greater success of conservative management, but delayed recognition alone does not mandate laparotomy. Intraperitoneal perforation, peritonitis, septic shock or persistent fistula warrants urgent surgical exploration.[23][24]

References​

1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Postoperative adhesions in gynecologic surgery: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):458–463. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.027

2. ten Broek RP, Strik C, Issa Y, Bleichrodt RP, van Goor H. Adhesiolysis-related morbidity in abdominal surgery. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):98-106. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826f4969

3. Coccolini F, Roberts D, Ansaloni L, et al. The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients: WSES guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:7. doi:10.1186/s13017-018-0167-4

4. Alvarez RD. Gastrointestinal complications in gynecologic surgery: a review for the general gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72(3 Pt 2):533-40.

5. Smyth L, Bendinelli C, Lee N, et al. WSES guidelines on blunt and penetrating bowel injury: diagnosis, investigations, and treatment. World J Emerg Surg. 2022;17(1):13. doi:10.1186/s13017-022-00418-y

6. Fitzgerald CA, Barnes C, Bisgaard EK, et al. Primary repair versus resection for AAST grades I and II colon injuries: does the management approach really matter? An EAST multicenter trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2025;99(1):105-112. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000004649

7. Bishoff JT, Allaf ME, Kirkels W, et al. Laparoscopic bowel injury: incidence and clinical presentation. J Urol. 1999;161(3):887-90. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)61797-x

8. Martin KE, Moore CM, Tucker R, Fuchshuber P, Robinson T. Quantifying inadvertent thermal bowel injury from the monopolar instrument. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(11):4776-4784. doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4807-z

9. Cassaro S. Delayed manifestations of laparoscopic bowel injury. Am Surg. 2015;81(5):478-82. doi:10.1177/000313481508100529

10. Brinkmann F, Hüttner R, Mehner PJ, et al. Temperature profile and residual heat of monopolar laparoscopic and endoscopic dissection instruments. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(6):4507-4517. doi:10.1007/s00464-021-08804-4

11. Khoury W, Abu-Abeid S, Person B, Klausner JM, Kariv Y. Missed inadvertent gastrointestinal injuries during abdominal operations: characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment. Am Surg. 2012;78(1):46-50. doi:10.1177/000313481207800129

12. Seternes A, Rekstad LC, Lossius W, Wasmuth HH. A method for treatment of deep and superficial enteroatmospheric fistulas in an open abdomen, ChimneyVAC: ten years experience. World J Surg. 2024;48(5):1066-1074. doi:10.1002/wjs.12156

13. Brown CVR, Teixeira PG, Furay E, et al. Contemporary management of rectal injuries at Level I trauma centers: the results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;84(2):225–233. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000001739

14. Bosarge PL, Como JJ, Fox N, et al. Management of penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(3):546–51. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000000953

15. Yee DS, Ornstein DK. Repair of rectal injury during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72(2):428–31. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.12.022

16. Baxter. Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier: Instructions for Use. 2023-09-28. Manufacturer IFU.

17. Schellenberg M, Koller S, de Moya M, et al. Diagnosis and management of traumatic rectal injury: a Western Trauma Association critical decisions algorithm. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023;95(5):731–736. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000004093. Accepted manuscript.

18. Krielen P, Stommel MWJ, Pargmae P, et al. Adhesion-related readmissions after open and laparoscopic surgery: a retrospective cohort study (SCAR update). Lancet. 2020;395(10217):33-41. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32636-4

19. Mitchao DP, Lewis MR, Strickland M, et al. Destructive colon injuries requiring resection: is colostomy ever indicated? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022;92(6):1039-1046. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000003513

20. Tang MH, Wong JSH, Chia CLK, Lee DJK. Meta-analysis on surgical management of colonic injuries in trauma: to divert or to anastomose? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021;47(5):1381-1388. doi:10.1007/s00068-020-01555-2

21. Manley NR, Sharpe JP, Lewis RH, et al. Analysis of over 2 decades of colon injuries identifies optimal method of diversion: does an end justify the means? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;86(2):214-219. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000002135

22. Junior MAFR, Wetoska N, Possiedi RD, et al. International survey on the management of colorectal trauma and alignment with current guidelines. Sci Rep. 2026;16(1):8199. doi:10.1038/s41598-026-39140-z

23. Öztürk H. Treatment of colonic injury during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Rev Urol. 2015;17(3):194-201. PMID 26543436

24. Savin Z, Nevo A, Sofer M. "Bowel perforation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: diagnosis, management, and follow-up." Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024;66:1–4. doi:10.1016/j.euros.2024.05.008

25. Romito I, Giannarini G, Rossanese M, Mucciardi G, Simonato A, Ficarra V. "Incidence of rectal injury after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;52:85–99. doi:10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.017

26. Ribeiro MAF, Efron DT, Dattwyler MP, et al. "Management of Colon and Rectal Injuries From Blunt and Penetrating Trauma: Evidence-Based Recommendations From the World Society of Emergency Surgery." JAMA Surg. Published online September 23, 2026. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2026.4263

27. Poston CM, Falcone T, Sprague ML. "Gastrointestinal and Genitourinary Complications of Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery." Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2025;14:10. doi:10.1007/s13669-025-00414-4