Clinical presentation and management of iatrogenic colon perforations

Imaging of Iatrogenic Injuries to the Bowel

This review discusses the ways in which the health care provider (or more broadly, the provision of medical care) can cause harm to the bowel and highlights the appearance of such untoward events on imaging. The etiologies are myriad, and as such, the radiologist must remain vigilant in identifying the presence of suspected and unsuspected injuries. Specific attention is given to complications from medication and external radiation therapy, as these interventions and their timing are often not known by the radiologist.

Evolving Evidence Supporting Use of Rectal Irrigation in the Management of Bowel Dysfunction: An Integrative Literature Review

Disorders of bowel function are prevalent, particularly among patients with spinal cord injuries and other neurological disorders. An individual's bowel control significantly impacts quality of life, as predictable bowel function is necessary to actively and independently participate in everyday activities. For many patients with bowel dysfunction, initial lifestyle adjustments and other conservative therapeutic interventions (eg, digital stimulation, oral laxatives, suppositories) are insufficient to reestablish regular bowel function. In addition to these options, rectal irrigation (RI) is a safe and effective method of standard bowel care that has been used for several decades in adults and children suffering from bowel dysfunction associated with neurogenic or functional bowel etiologies. Rectal irrigation is an appropriate option when conservative bowel treatments are inadequate. Unlike surgical options, RI can be initiated or discontinued at any time. This report summarizes the clinical, humanistic, and economic evidence supporting the use of RI in clinical practice, noting features (eg, practical considerations, patient education) that can improve patients' success with RI treatment.

Colorectal barotrauma following compressed air spray to the perineum

Colorectal injuries caused by high-pressure air compressors are rare and reported especially among industrial workers. They may appear because of intended or accidental injury. In the present paper, we report a case of colorectal injuries due to air insufflation from a distance towards the anus with the clothes on, as a means of a practical joke. The patient presented one day after the trauma to the Emergency Department with complaints of severe abdominal pain and vomiting. On examination, he had signs of peritonitis. A computed tomography (CT) scan did not show any perforation. Emergency laparotomy was performed with the suspicion of pneumatic pressure-induced lesions. A total resection of the colon was made with enterostomy. The pathologic examination of the resected piece revealed multiple gangrenous areas without perforation associated to signs of peritonitis. Follow up was uneventful. A reversal of the enterostomy was scheduled.

A Case of Self-Induced Hydrostatic Colonic Perforation

Introduction: Constipation is a common complaint. The elderly are five times more prone to constipation than young people because of the effects of medication, immobility, and a blunted urge to defecate. Many of these patients are demented, have cognitive deficits, or suffer from a psychiatric disorder.

Colonic perforation caused by hydrostatic pressure is rare, and this typically occurs during fluoroscopic studies resulting when there is excessive intraluminal colonic pressure. Self-induced colonic perforation is even rarer.

Case report: We report the case of a 95-year-old man who presented to the emergency department with an acute surgical abdomen and symptoms of sepsis. He had a history of longstanding constipation. He gave a history of frequent insertion of a rubber hose into his anal canal to relieve his constipation while rinsing his anus after defecation. After resuscitation, an emergency operation was performed, and sigmoid colon perforation was found in addition to pre-existing diverticular disease. Hartmann’s procedure was performed after abdominal washout. Unfortunately, the patient died of multi-organ failure two days after surgery.

Conclusion: Self-induced hydrostatic colonic perforation is rare. The consequence is fatal, especially in the elderly or in cases of delayed presentation.

Current understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on gastrointestinal disease: Challenges and openings

The novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus which belongs to the Coronaviridae family. In March 2019 the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 was a pandemic. COVID-19 patients typically have a fever, dry cough, dyspnea, fatigue, and anosmia. Some patients also report gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver enzyme abnormalities. Surprisingly, many studies have found severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral RNA in rectal swabs and stool specimens of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. In addition, viral receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane protease serine-type 2, were also found to be highly expressed in gastrointestinal epithelial cells of the intestinal mucosa. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 can dynamically infect and replicate in both GI and liver cells. Taken together these results indicate that the GI tract is a potential target of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the present review summarizes the vital information available to date on COVID-19 and its impact on GI aspects.

Role of transanal irrigation in the treatment of anterior resection syndrome

BACKGROUND

Transanal irrigation(TAI) has been reported to be an inexpensive and effective treatment for low anterior resection syndrome(LARS). The aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate the use of TAI in patients with significant LARS symptoms at a single medical center.

METHODS

Patients who had low anterior resection for rectal cancer between April 2015 and May 2016 at the Careggi University Hospital were assessed for LARS using the LARS and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument (MSKCC BFI) questionnaires 30-40 days after  surgery or ileostomy closure (if this was done). Quality of life was evaluated using a visual analog scale and the Short Form-36 Health Survey. All patients with LARS score of 30 or higher were included (early LARS) as were all patients with a LARS score of 30 or higher referred 6 months or longer after surgery performed elsewhere (chronic LARS) in the same study period. Study participants were trained to perform TAI using the Peristeen™ System for 6 months, followed by 3 months of enema therapy following a similar protocol.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study. Six patients stopped the treatment. The 27 patients (19 early LARS and 8 chronic LARS) who completed the study had a significant decrease in the number of median daily bowel movements [baseline 7 (range 0-14); 6 months 1 (range 0-4); 9 months 4 (range 0-13)]. The median LARS Score fell from 35.1 (range 30-42) (baseline) to 12.2 (range 0-21) after 6 months (p < 0.0001) and then rose to 27 (range 5-39) after 3 months of enema therapy. There was no difference in LARS score decrease at 6 months between the patients with early and chronic LARS (22.5 and 23.9 respectively; p=0.7) and there were no predictors of score decrease. Four components of the SF-36 significantly improved during the TAI period. The MSKCC BFI score significantly improved in several domains. Twenty-three patients (85%) asked to continue the treatment with TAI after the study ended.

CONCLUSIONS

TAI appears to be an effective treatment for LARS and results in a marked improvement of continence and quality of life.  Patients may be assessed and treated for LARS early after surgery since the treatment benefit is similar to that observed in patients with LARS diagnosed  6 months or longer after surgery. The potential rehabilitative role of TAI for LARS is promising and should be further investigated.

Intestinal perforation after surgical treatment for incisional hernia: iatrogenic or idiopathic?

Intestinal perforation (IP) is a life-threatening gastroenterological condition requiring urgent surgical care, which may present itself as an uncommon complication following incisional hernia repair surgery, most often because of iatrogenic traumatism occurring during the procedure. However, we report a case where a spontaneous onset can be hypothesised. A 60-years-old patient underwent repair of an abdominal laparocele, through rectus abdominis muscle plasty, 5 years after development of an incisional hernia due to exploratory laparotomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Xipho-pubic scar was excised and umbilicus and supra-umbilical hernia sac dissected, a linear median incision was performed along the sub-umbilical linea alba, reaching preperitoneal plane to assess any intestinal loop adherence to the abdominal wall. After limited viscerolysis, abdominal wall defect was corrected by ‘rectus abdominis muscle plasty’ and umbilicus reconstruction by Santanelli technique. Postoperative course was uneventful until Day 29, with sudden onset of epigastric pain, fever and bulge. Sixty cubic centimeter pus was drained percutaneously and cavity was rinsed with a 50% H2O2 and H2O V-V solution until draining clear fluid. Symptoms recurred two days later, while during rinsing presented dyspnoea. X-Ray and CT scan diagnosed IP, and she underwent under emergency an exploratory laparotomy, leading to right hemicolectomy extended to last ileal loops and middle third of the transverse, right monolateral salpingo-ovariectomy and a temporary ileostomy by general surgeon. Twenty-three days later an ileostomy reversal surgery was performed and 8 days after she was discharged. At latest follow-up patient showed fair conditions, complaining abdominal pain and diarrhoea, attributable to the extensive intestinal resection. IP following incisional hernia repair, is reported as uncommon and early postoperative complication. In our case, the previous regular postoperative course with late onset lead us to hypothesise a possible idiopathic etiopathogenesis, because of a strangulation followed by gangrene and abscess formation, which might begin before the incisional hernia repair and unnoticed at the time surgery was performed.

Management Outcomes of Colonoscopic Perforations Are Affected by the General Condition of the Patients

Purpose

The management of a colonoscopic perforation (CP) varies from conservative to surgical. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes between surgical and conservative treatment of patients with a CP.

Methods

From 2003 to 2016, the medical records of patients with CP were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on whether they initially received conservative or surgical treatment.

Results

During the study period, a total of 48 patients with a CP were treated. Among them, 5 patients had underlying colorectal cancer and underwent emergency radical cancer surgery; these patients were excluded. The mean age of the remaining 43 patients was 64.5 years old, and the most common perforation site was the sigmoid colon (15 patients). The initial conservative care group included 16 patients, and the surgery group included 27 patients. In the conservative group, 5 patients required conversion to surgery (failure rate: 5 of 16 [31.3%]). Of the surgery group, laparoscopic surgery was performed on 19 patients and open surgery on 8 patients, including 2 conversion cases. Major postoperative complications developed in 11 patients (34.4%), and postoperative mortality developed in 4 patients (12.5%). The only predictor for poor prognosis after surgery was a high American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification.

Conclusion

In this study, conservative treatment for patients with a CP had a relatively high failure rate. Furthermore, surgical treatment showed significant rates of complications and mortality, which depended on the general status of the patients.

2017 WSES guidelines for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation (ICP) is a severe complication that can occur during both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Although 45-60% of ICPs are diagnosed by the endoscopist while performing the colonoscopy, many ICPs are not immediately recognized but are instead suspected on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms that occur after the endoscopic procedure. There are three main therapeutic options for ICPs: endoscopic repair, conservative therapy, and surgery. The therapeutic approach must vary based on the setting of the diagnosis (intra- or post-colonoscopy), the type of ICP, the characteristics and general status of the patient, the operator's level of experience, and surgical device availability. Although ICPs have been the focus of numerous publications, no guidelines have been created to standardize the management of ICPs. The aim of this article is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of ICP, which are intended to be used as a tool to promote global standards of care in case of ICP. These guidelines are not meant to substitute providers' clinical judgment for individual patients, and they may need to be modified based on the medical team's level of experience and the availability of local resources.

Colonoscopic perforations: Single center experience and review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a well-known complication that can increase mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Closer follow-up and a well-planned treatment strategy are required when perforation arises as a complication. The aims of this study are to (1) report our experience with a large colonoscopy series; (2) evaluate the underlying mechanisms of iatrogenic colonic perforation; (3) discuss the ideal period between onset and treatment; and (4) review the current literature regarding the management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who underwent colonoscopy between January 2005 and May 2015 at a single center were reviewed retrospectively. Procedures during which colonic perforations occurred were documented and analyzed.

RESULTS

Between January 2005 and May 2015, 31,655 patients underwent colonoscopy and 5,214 patients underwent recto-sigmoidoscopy at our center. Thirteen of these procedures were associated with perforation. The perforation rate was found to be 0.041%. The most frequent locations of perforation were (a) the rectosigmoid junction, (b) the proximal rectum, and (c) the sigmoid colon. Management included surgical treatment in 11 patients and conservative management in 2 patients. Twelve patients (92.31%) were discharged uneventfully, and death occurred in one (7.69%) patient.

CONCLUSION

Although they are rarely encountered, colonic perforations are serious complications of colonoscopy. A high index of clinical suspicion is required for early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Age, co-morbidities, the location and size of the perforation, and the time interval between onset and diagnosis should be evaluated, and the treatment approach should be planned accordingly.

Colorectal Perforation After Anorectal Manometry for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome

We experienced 3 cases of manometry-induced colon perforation. A 75-year-old man (case 1) underwent anorectal manometry (ARM) 3 years after radiotherapy for prostate cancer and a laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. A 70-year-old man (case 2) underwent ARM 3 months after conventional neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and a laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. A 78-year-old man (case 3) underwent ARM 2 months after a laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. In all cases, a colon perforation with fecal peritonitis occurred. All were treated successfully using prompt and active operations and were discharged without any complications. ARM with a balloon, as a measure of rectal compliance, should be performed 2 months or longer after surgery. If a perforation occurs, prompt and active surgical intervention is necessary due to the high possibility of extensive fecal peritonitis.

Pneumoretroperitoneum, Pneumomediastinum, Subcutaneous Emphysema After a Rectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

An endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective and safe therapeutic technique for treating a patient with a laterally-spreading tumor (LST). Colonoscopic-procedure-related complications are noted to be about 2.8% worldwide, and a perforation is the most common. Most colon perforations cause pneumoperitoneum. However, a perforation within the retroperitoneal portion of the colon (rectum and some of sigmoid colon) may cause an extraperitoneal perforation, and the leaking free air may induce pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema, depending on the amount of discharged air. Herein, we present the case of a patient with an extraperitoneal colon microperforation which manifested as pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema after an EMR for a sigmoid LST, which was successfully treated with medical treatment and endoscopic clipping.

The impact of early surgical intervention in free intestinal perforation: a time-to-intervention pilot study

PURPOSES

An abdominal inflammatory focus is the second most often source of sepsis with a high risk of death in surgical intensive care units. By establishing evidence-based bundled strategies the surviving sepsis campaign provided an optimized rapid and continuous treatment of these emergency patients. Hereby the hospital mortality decreased from 35 to 30 %. Sepsis treatment is based on three major therapeutic elements: surgical treatment (source control), antiinfective treatment, and supportive care. The international guidelines of the surviving sepsis campaign were updated recently and recommend rapid diagnosis of the infection and source control within the first 12 h after the diagnosis (grade 1c). Interestingly this recommendation is mainly based on studies on soft tissue infections.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis 76 septic patients with an intraabdominal inflammatory focus were included. All patients underwent surgery at different time-points after diagnosis.

RESULTS

With 80 % patients of the early intervention group had an improved overall survival (vs. 73 % in the late intervention group).

CONCLUSIONS

Literature on the time dependency of early source control is rare and in part contradicting. Results of this pilot study reveal that immediate surgical intervention might be of advantage for septic emergency patients. Further multi-center approaches will be necessary to evaluate, whether the TTI has any impact on the outcome of septic patients with intestinal perforation.

Decision-making in the management of colonoscopic perforation: a multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colonoscopic perforation has increased following the widespread use of colonoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal disease. The purpose of our study was to compare the clinical outcomes between surgical and non-surgical treatment of colonoscopic perforation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with colonoscopic perforation, which was treated between January 2005 and December 2014. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they received non-surgical (conservative management or endoscopic clipping) or surgical (primary closure, bowel resection and anastomosis, and/or faecal diversion) initial treatment for the perforation. Conversion was defined as the change from a non-surgical to surgical procedure after treatment failure.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine patients were analysed. Surgical treatment was more common following diagnostic than therapeutic colonoscopic procedures (74.5 vs. 53.7 %, P = 0.023). Of 55 patients in the non-surgical group, 11 patients required conversion to surgery. The surgical group comprised 54 patients. The complication rate (P = 0.001), and the length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly greater in the patients requiring conversion than in the surgical group. Multivariate analysis showed that old age, American Society for Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, and conversion were independent predictors of poor outcomes (P = 0.048, 0.032, and 0.001, respectively). Only perforation size was associated with conversion in multivariate analysis (P = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

It is important to select an appropriate treatment in patients with colonoscopic perforation. To avoid non-surgical treatment failure, surgery should be considered in patients with a large perforation. By decreasing the rate of conversion, we might reduce the complication and mortality rates associated with colonoscopic perforation.

Role of Multidetector Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Colorectal Perforations

Colonic perforations can be classified into perforations that occur at the site of a localized pathologic process and cecal perforations that occur secondary to distal colonic obstructions. Rectal perforations may result from foreign bodies inserted into the rectum; moreover, deep rectal biopsies, polypectomy, improper cleansing enema, or thermometer placement may also lead to rectal perforation. Correct identification of the cause and site of the perforation is crucial for appropriate management and surgical planning. Multidetector row computed tomography has a pivot role in planning the type of operative treatment, the prognosis, and in assessing those patients who have clinical symptoms of peritonitis but no radiographic signs of perforation.

"Death by a thread"--peritonitis due to visceral perforation by a guide wire, during proximal femur osteosynthesis with DHS: a fatal case and legal implications

Iatrogenic intestinal perforations in orthopaedic surgery are very rare. Reports of iatrogenic lesions caused by a guide wire during femur fracture osteosynthesis are even scarcer. There are no similar reports in recent literature. As opposed to what is normally described the lesion documented in this case report was not identified on time resulting in death by peritonitis. The forensic autopsy allowed the identification of an intestinal perforation with faecal leakage to peritoneal space in association with a vesical perforation enabling the reproduction of the guide wire path. In view of the increasing number of osteosynthesis it is essential for the surgeon to be aware of possible complications due to guide wire perforations. Cases like this go unnoticed if the forensic pathologist is not familiarized with the surgical technique which may explain the rarity of such descriptions in literature.

Complications of minimally invasive procedures of the abdomen and pelvis: a comprehensive update on the clinical and imaging features

Minimally invasive gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and gynecological procedures are widely used in the clinical practice for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Complications both minor and major are not uncommon with these procedures. Imaging plays an important role in the detection and optimal management of these complications. Familiarity with the clinical and imaging features of these complications by radiologists can help in their timely detection.

Comparison of the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon perforation during colonoscopy

Purpose

Colonoscopy is a safe and commonly used method for the screening of colon cancer, but sometimes major complications, such as, colonic perforation or hemorrhage occur during the procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colon perforation after colonoscopy.

Methods

A retrospective review of patient records was performed on 25 patients with iatrogenic colon perforation during colonoscopy during the 7-year period from January 2005 to June 2012. Demographic data, operative procedures, operation times, postoperative complications, hospital course, and morbidities in the laparoscopic surgery group (LG) and open surgery group (OG) were compared.

Results

Seventeen of the 25 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (68%) and 8 patients open surgery (32%). The most common surgical methods were primary repair in the LG, and Hartmann's operation in the OG. Average time to first flatus was 2.9 days in the LG and 4.5 days in the OG, and average times to first meals were 4.5 days and 5 days, respectively. Mean hospital stays were 10.8 days in the LG and 17 days in the OG. After surgery, complications occurred in two patients in the LG, but no complication occurred in the OG.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic repair for iatrogenic colonic perforation during colonoscopy seems to be useful and safe surgical method in early period after perforation. However, open surgery is also needed for the delayed cases after perforation.

Lower rate of colonoscopic perforation: 110,785 patients of colonoscopy performed by colorectal surgeons in a large teaching hospital in China

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopic perforation (CP) has a low incidence rate. However, with the extensive use of colonoscopy, even low incidence rates should be evaluated to identify and address risks. Information on CP is quite limited in China.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to determine the frequency of CP in colonoscopies performed by surgeons at a large teaching hospital in China over a 12-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records was performed for all patients who had CPs from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2012. Iatrogenic perforations were identified mainly by abdominal X-ray or computed tomography scan. Follow-up information of adverse events post-colonoscopy was identified from the colorectal surgery database of our hospital. Patients' demographic data, colonoscopy procedure information, location of perforation, treatment, and outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 110,785 diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy procedures were performed (86,800 diagnostic cases and 23,985 therapeutic cases) within the 12-year study period. A total of 14 incidents (0.012%) of CP were reported (seven males and seven females), of which nine cases occurred during diagnostic colonoscopy (0.01%) and five after therapeutic colonoscopy (three polypectomy cases, one endoscopic mucosal resection, and one endoscopic mucosal dissection). Mean patient age was 67.14 years. One case of CP (7.14%) after colonoscopy polypectomy was treated using curative colonoscopy endoclips. Other patients underwent operations: six cases (46.15%) of primary repair, four cases (28.57%) of resection with anastomosis, and two cases (15.38%) of resection without anastomosis. No obvious perforation was found in one patient (7.69%). Surgeons attempted to treat one case laparoscopically but eventually resorted to open surgery. The postoperative course was uncomplicated in eight cases (57.14%) and complicated in six cases (42.86%) but without mortality.

CONCLUSION

CP is a serious but rare complication of colonoscopy. A perforation risk of 0.012% was found in our study. The optimal management of CP remains controversial. Treatment for CP should be individualized according to the patient's condition, related devices, and surgical skills of endoscopists or surgeons. Selective measures such as colonoscopy without intravenous sedation and decrease of loop formation can effectively reduce rates of perforation.

Risk factors for abdominal bleeding after living-donor liver transplant

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence, outcomes, and risk factors of postoperative abdominal bleeding after living-donor liver transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult patients who had living-donor liver transplant between 2001 and 2013 were evaluated. Preoperative and intraoperative variables of transplant recipients were analyzed retrospectively with univariate analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify independent factors for postoperative bleeding.

RESULTS

There were 241 living-donor liver transplant recipients included in the study. Postoperative abdominal bleeding was observed in 12 recipients (5%). The 3-month cumulative survival was significantly lower in recipients who had postoperative bleeding (survival, 8 patients [67%]) than recipients who did not have postoperative bleeding (survival, 204 patients [89%]; P = .009). Univariate analysis showed that preoperative albumin level, Child-Pugh class, and intraoperative blood loss were risk factors for postoperative bleeding. In multivariate analysis, intraoperative blood loss and Child-Pugh status were significant risk factors for postoperative bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Living-donor liver transplant recipients who had postoperative bleeding had a poor outcome. Postoperative bleeding was associated with higher intraoperative blood loss and Child-Pugh class.

Orthopaedic guide wire injury to ileum in a case of fracture neck of femur

Iatrogenic perforation of the bowel is a rarity and no case has been reported in the literature so far, of iatrogenic ileal perforation due to orthopaedic guide wire insertion while doing open reduction and internal fixation of fracture neck of femur. As the number of these fixation procedures is increasing by the day it is imperative that surgeons remain aware of this potential complication and take pre-emptive measures to prevent it.

Colorectal perforation by self-induced hydrostatic pressure: a report of two cases

BACKGROUND

Most iatrogenic colorectal perforations occur as a result of endoscopic or fluoroscopic studies. Accidents associated with hydrostatic pressure-induced perforation are rarely reported, and self-induced hydrostatic pressure is an extremely rare cause of perforation because the anal sphincter complex may provide a protective barrier against perianal hydrostatic pressure. We present two cases of rectosigmoid colon perforation secondary to self-induced hydrostatic pressure.

CASE REPORTS

A 61-year-old man and a 45-year-old man presented with abdominal pain after forceful entry of tap water into the rectum, during rinsing of the anus after defecation in the first case, and during self-administered enema in the second case. Emergency operations were performed with the suspicion of hydrostatic pressure-induced rectal injury, and showed rectosigmoid mesenteric perforation in both cases. Resection of the diseased segment and end colostomy (Hartmann's procedure) was performed in the first case, and primary resection and anastomosis in the second case. The pathologic results showed abrupt loss of the colonic wall in the mesenteric border, without evidence of other inflammatory disease; these findings were consistent with acute mechanical colon injury. The postoperative course in both cases was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

These cases put forth an unusual type of colorectal injury, caused specifically by hydrostatic pressure, thus adding to the available literature on hydrostatic pressure-induced injury.

The Indications for Nonsurgical Management in Patients with Colorectal Perforation after Colonoscopy

Recently, the risk of colonic perforation has been increasing with the increased frequency of advanced therapeutic endoscopy. However, guidelines for the management of colon perforations after colonoscopy have not been established. This study aimed to evaluate the indications for nonsurgical management. This study was conducted as a case–control study with 22 patients who were managed for colorectal perforations after colonoscopy from June 2004 to July 2009. Colonoscopy was performed in 12 patients (54.4%) for diagnostic purposes and 10 (45.5%) for therapeutic reasons. The most common site of perforation was the sigmoid colon (77.3%). Five patients underwent nonsurgical treatment, and 17 patients received surgical treatment. The duration of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the two groups. Abdominal pain and fever were significantly more commonly encountered in the surgical management group ( P = 0.043 and 0.011, respectively). All of the patients who were suitable for nonsurgical treatment were diagnosed within 24 hours and received bowel preparation before the colonoscopy. The nonsurgical treatment of colonic perforation after colonoscopy could be feasible in afebrile patients with less severe abdominal pain. Moreover, cases that were diagnosed within 24 hours and received bowel preparation before colonoscopy were associated with better outcomes.

From fecal impaction to colon perforation

The authors present the case of an elderly, nonverbal nursing home resident with dementia who developed fecal impaction, despite interventions such as enema. Subsequent stercoral perforation of the sigmoid colon resulted in peritonitis, sepsis, and death. The authors discuss colon perforation as a result of fecal impaction, as well as the difficulties of pain assessment and communication in patients with dementia.

Colonoscopy-assisted reposition of the incarcerated uterus in mid-pregnancy: a report of four cases and a literature review

The treatment of mid-gestational uterine incarceration remains a challenge. The success rate of manual reduction decreases with gestational age, and an operative procedure may carry important fetal, next to possible maternal morbidities. We will present four cases of uterine incarceration between the 15th and 25th week of pregnancy of which three colonoscopy-assisted manual repositions proved successful. It illustrates that conservative treatment of uterine incarceration is feasible, even during the late second trimester. That is why a review of the conservative approach of this rare condition is also presented.

Iatrogenic perforation at colonic imaging

AIM

Adequate colonic imaging is generally an invasive procedure with attendant risks, particularly perforation. Endoscopy, barium enema and computed tomographic colonography (CTC) are the main techniques for investigating patients with symptoms of, or screening for, colorectal cancer. The potential complications of these investigations have to be weighed against the benefits. This article reviews the literature on the incidence, presentation and management of iatrogenic colonic perforation at colonic imaging.

METHOD

A literature review of relevant studies was undertaken using PubMed, Cochrane library and personal archives of references. Manual cross-referencing was performed, and relevant references from selected articles were reviewed. Studies reporting complications of endoscopy, barium enema and CT colonography were included in this review.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were identified comprising 640,433 colonoscopies, with iatrogenic perforation recorded in 585 patients (0.06%). The reported perforation rate with double-contrast barium enema was between 0.02 and 0.24%. Serious complications with CTC were infrequent, though nine perforations were reported in a case series of 24,365 patients (0.036%) undergoing CTC.

CONCLUSION

Perforation remains an infrequent and almost certainly under-reported, complication of all colonic imaging modalities. Risk awareness, early diagnosis and active management of iatrogenic perforation minimizes an adverse outcome.

Recurrent incarceration and/or sacculation of the gravid uterus: a review

Retroverted uterine incarceration with sacculation of the anterior wall is reported to occur approximately in 1/3000 pregnancies. A literature search identified only one case report of incarceration of an anteflexed gravid uterus and six reported cases of recurrent incarceration and/or sacculation. We present a case of an incarceration of an anteflexed uterus in the first pregnancy, followed by a retroflexed incarceration in the second pregnancy. From this, a review is presented on recurrent uterine incarceration and/or sacculation.

Colonoscopic perforation: incidence, risk factors, management and outcome

This review discusses the incidence, risk factors, management and outcome of colonoscopic perforation (CP). The incidence of CP ranges from 0.016% to 0.2% following diagnostic colonoscopies and could be up to 5% following some colonoscopic interventions. The perforations are frequently related to therapeutic colonoscopies and are associated with patients of advanced age or with multiple comorbidities. Management of CP is mainly based on patients' clinical grounds and their underlying colorectal diseases. Current therapeutic approaches include conservative management (bowel rest plus the administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics), endoscopic management, and operative management (open or laparoscopic approach). The applications of each treatment are discussed. Overall outcomes of patients with CP are also addressed.

[Colonoscopic perforation; a 10-year experience in single general hospital]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colonoscopy is the principal method for diagnosis, treatment, and follow up of colorectal disease. The study aimed to assess the incidence, clinical features, and management of colonoscopic perforations at a local general hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patient record was performed for all patients with iatrogenic colonic perforation after sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy between 1997 and 2007.

RESULTS

In the 10-year period, 16,388 colonoscopic and sigmoidscopic procedure were performed. All 10 cases of procedure related colonic perforation were developed. Perforation occurred in 9 cases during therapeutic procedure; 5 cases due to polypectomy and 4 cases due to endoscopic submucosal dissection. Perforation occurred in one case during diagnostic procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic procedure is a clear risk factor of colonic perforation. When colonic perforation occurs, we should be able to make early diagnosis. Early diagnosis can lead to a good treatment and can produce good prognosis with short hospital days.

Conservative management of rectal perforation after nerve sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (nsEERPE) in a patient with a past history of polypectomy

Introduction

Rectal polypectomy causes thinning (or even perforation) of the rectal wall in addition to thermic injury at the polypectomy site.

Case report

We present a rare case of spontaneous rectal perforation after uncomplicated nerve sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy in a patient with a previous history of rectal polypectomy at the perforation site. The patient could be treated conservatively. There was complete healing of the fistula without any effect on functional results. This Conservative therapy for such rectal perforations is indicated if the patient's general condition remains stable without any signs of infection.

Conclusions

Polypectomy is an important risk factor for rectal perforation during nsEERPE. Adequate time interval should be given to allow healing and avoid adding further thermal wall damage which may obscure healing leading to complications like fistula. Conservative therapy for small missed rectal perforations constitutes an attractive, feasible and non invasive treatment entity. Following this principle we have not faced this complication in following similar cases.

Risk of perforation from a colonoscopy in adults: a large population-based study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies that reported the incidence of perforation from a colonoscopy are limited by small sample sizes, restricted age groups, or single-center data.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence and risk factors of colonic perforation from a colonoscopy in a large population cohort.

DESIGN

Retrospective, population-based, cohort study, followed by a nested case-control study.

SETTING

California Medicaid program claims database.

PATIENTS

A total of 277,434 patients (aged 18 years and older) who underwent a colonoscopy during 1995 to 2005, age, sex, and time matched to 4 unique general-population controls.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Perforation incidence in the 7 days after colonoscopy (or matched index date for controls) with odds ratio (OR); multivariate logistic regression to calculate adjusted ORs for subsequent analysis of risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 228 perforations were diagnosed after 277,434 colonoscopies, which corresponded to a cumulative 7-day incidence of 0.082%. The OR of getting a perforation from a colonoscopy compared with matched controls (n = 1,072,723) who did not undergo a colonoscopy was 27.6 (95% CI, 19.04-39.92), P < .001. On multivariate analysis, when comparing the group that had a perforation after a colonoscopy (n = 216) with those who did not (n = 269,496), increasing age, significant comorbidity, obstruction as an indication for the colonoscopy, and performance of invasive interventions during colonoscopy were significant positive predictors. Performance of biopsy or polypectomy did not affect the perforation risk. The rate of perforation did not change significantly over time.

LIMITATIONS

Validity of coding and capturing of all perforation diagnoses may possibly be deficient.

CONCLUSION

The risk of perforation from a colonoscopy is low, but, despite increased experience with the procedure, it remains unchanged over time.

Silent perforation: an iatrogenic complication of colonoscopy

A 55-year-old woman presented with a complaint of 3 months of bloody diarrhea with an approximately 8 stools per day. She initially underwent a flexible sigmoidoscopy at an outside hospital with biopsies showing acute and chronic colitis. She was started on asacol 2 tablets 3 times per day. Her symptoms persisted and she was placed on prednisone with only transient improvement in her symptoms. She continued to have diarrhea and malaise with 30-lb weight loss over 2 months. Outpatient colonoscopy was performed for evaluation of this change in bowel habit. Colonoscopy showed 2-cm terminal ileal polyp, focal ulcer of the cecum, and severe ulcerative colitis from mid-ascending colon to rectum, with touch friability, spontaneous bleeding, pseudopolyps, and ulceration. Multiple biopsies were taken of the friable and ulcerated regions. After colonoscopy, the patient remained stable with no complaints of pain. She was then taken for computed tomographic enterography showing severe colitis but also reflecting a large amount of air surrounding the right abdominal structures including the liver, gallbladder, right kidney, and right side of the colon. Air extended inferiorly into the right thigh and superiorly into the chest where it reached the mediastinum and pericardium. There was also a small amount of air in the peritoneal cavity under the diaphragm and adjacent to the liver. These findings were thought most likely secondary to asymptomatic colonic perforation secondary to colonoscopy. The patient remained stable, afebrile, and pain-free small bowel pathology from colonoscopy revealed carcinoid tumor of the terminal ileum. The patient remained stable despite intraperitoneal, retroperitoneal, and subcutaneous free air on follow-up x-ray. Patient underwent elective ileocecectomy 2 weeks later with postoperative films showing no evidence of free air. Iatrogenic perforation of the colon is a rare but feared complication of coloscopy with an incidence in some studies of 0.03% to 0.09%. This case demonstrates asymptomatic colonic perforation to a dramatic effect.

Implementation of MR colonography

BACKGROUND

MR colonography (MRC) is a promising method of examining the colon, but is limited to a few specialist centres. The purpose of this article was to describe the implementation of MRC with fecal tagging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients referred for conventional colonoscopy (CC) were offered MRC with fecal tagging before CC. Two days before MRC patients ingested an oral contrast agent. Before and after MRC and CC a number of questions were addressed. MR images were rated by a blinded investigator.

RESULTS

In 6 months, 30 consecutive patients were included. The median time in the MR suite was 44 min, 23 min for the MRC examination and 9 min for the evaluation. The median time for CC was 32 min. Sixty-six percent of the patients preferred MRC as the future method of examination, 10% preferred CC, 21% had no preferences. Of the oral contrast agents, barium sulphate with ferumoxsil was significantly better than barium sulphate alone.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the patients found MRC less unpleasant than CC and a majority would prefer MRC over CC as a future colon examination. MRC also appears to be less time consuming to the patients and medical personnel than CC with post-procedural monitoring.

Colonoscopic perforation

Perforation is an uncommon but important complication of colonoscopy. This review looks at the incidence, clinical features, diagnosis and treatment of this condition.

Colonoscopic perforations: a review of 30,366 patients

BACKGROUND

Although the incidence of perforation after endoscopic procedures of the colon is low, the rising number of procedures could pose relevant health problems. Recognizing risk factors and optimizing treatment may reduce perforation incidence and the probability of (severe) complications. This study aimed to determine perforation frequency and the management of endoscopic colonoscopic perforation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patient records was performed for all patients with iatrogenic colonic perforations after sigmoido/colonoscopy between 1990 and 2005. The patients' demographic data, endoscopic procedural information, perforation location, therapy, and outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

In the 16-year period, 30,366 endoscopic colonic procedures were performed. In total, 35 colonic perforations occured (0.12%). All the patients underwent a laparotomy: for primary repair in 18 cases (56%), for resection with anastomosis in 8 cases (25%), and for resection without anastomosis in 6 cases (19%). In three patients (8.6%), no perforation was found. The postoperative course was uncomplicated in 21 cases (60%) and complicated in 14 cases (40%), including mortality for 3 patients (8.6% resulting from perforations and 0.01% resulting from total endoscopic colon procedures). The relative risk ratio of colonoscopic and sigmoidoscopic procedures for perforations was 4. Therapeutic procedures show a delay in presentation and diagnosis compared with diagnostic procedures. Of the 35 perforations, 26 (74%) occurred in the sigmoid colon.

CONCLUSION

Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a serious but rare complication of colonoscopy. A perforation risk of 0.12% was found. The perforation risk was higher for colonoscopic procedures than for sigmoidoscopic procedures. The sigmoid colon is the area at greatest risk for perforation. Immediate operative management, preferably primary repair and sometimes resection, appears to be a good strategy for most patients.

Complications of endoscopy

This article focuses on potential complications of standard upper and lower endoscopic procedures. Adverse events associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EUS, and certain advanced therapeutic techniques such as mucosal resection are not covered. Rather, the article focuses on the recognition of preprocedure risk factors for various complications and the diagnosis and management for procedure-related adverse events.

Incidence and management of colonoscopic perforations: 8 years' experience

AIM

To review the experience of a major medical teaching center with diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies and to assess the incidence and management of related colonic perforations.

METHODS

All colonoscopies performed between January 1994 and December 2001 were studied. Data on patients, colonoscopic reports and procedure-related complications were collected from the departmental computerized database. The medical records of the patients with post procedural colonic perforation were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 120067 colonoscopies were performed during the 8 years of the study. Seven colonoscopic perforations (4 females, 3 males) were diagnosed (0.058%). Five occurred during diagnostic and two during therapeutic colonoscopy. Six were suspected during or immediately after colonoscopy. All except one had signs of diffuse tenderness and underwent immediate operation with primary repair done in 4 patients. No deaths were reported.

CONCLUSION

Perforation rate during colonoscopy is low. Nevertheless, it is a serious complication and its early recognition and treatment are essential to optimize outcome. In patients with diffuse peritonitis early operative intervention makes primary repair a safe option.

Intravasation of barium sulphate at barium enema examination

We report a case of venous intravasation of barium sulphate occurring during a routine barium enema examination for investigation of rectal bleeding. The patient suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest, but made a full recovery after organ support in intensive care. Review of radiographs from the examination showed intravasated barium in pelvic vessels. We review the literature on this rare, but serious, complication of barium enema examination and suggest measures by which intravasation can be prevented.

Emphysème sous-cutané, pneumomédiastin, pneumopéritoine et rétropneumopéritoine dans les suites d’une coloscopie avec mucosectomie

The occurrence of associated intraperitoneal and retroperitoneal colonic perforation is uncommon after colonoscopy. We report a case of this complication revealed by subcutaneous emphysema, pneumomediastinum, pneumoperitoneum and retro-pneumoperitoneum after colonic mucosectomy.

Rectal perforations after barium enema: a review

PURPOSE

Rectal injuries during barium enema are rare but life-threatening complications. The last review about this subject was published more than ten years ago. In the present review, we present an overview on the subject and especially focus on changes in treatment strategies and developments of less risky visualization techniques.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the PubMed library using the key words-barium enema, complications, peritonitis, and rectal perforation-as well as related articles and other references obtained from these articles.

RESULTS

The most frequent cause of perforation is iatrogenic and catheter-related. Other causes are related to weakness of the colorectal wall or obstruction. Five types of perforations have been described: 1) perforations of the anal canal below the levator; 2) incomplete perforations; 3) perforations into the retroperitoneum; 4) transmural perforations into adjacent viscera; 5) perforations into the free intraperitoneal cavity. Most incomplete perforations and one-half of the retroperitoneal perforations have minimal clinical signs. Intraperitoneal perforations lead to the most catastrophic course, starting with rectal bleeding and mild abdominal complaints. This is rapidly followed by progressive sepsis and peritonitis, and leads to a high mortality rate. Surgery is not always required for intramural or small retroperitoneal perforations. These can be treated conservatively and require surgical debridement only in case of large amounts of extravasation or abscesses. Surgical repair of large rectal mucosal lesions or anal sphincter lesions is advised. Perirectal abscesses require drainage. Intraperitoneal perforations with gross extravasation need immediate aggressive surgical treatment in a critical care setting, because the threat of shock is high. Intraperitoneal perforations, neglected perforations, gross barium extravasation, poorly prepared colon, and venous intravasation of barium are prognostically unfavorable. The severest late complication in intraperitoneal perforations is ileus. Meticulous technical performance of the barium enema is the most important factor in prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal perforations after barium enema are rare. The overall mortality rate decreased in recent decades from approximately 50 to 35 percent as the result of advances in supportive and intensive care. Because of these advances, more aggressive surgical strategies were undertaken. With the advent of endoscopy, less barium enemas are performed. Consequently, the absolute incidence of complications has decreased. It is expected that in the future barium enemas will be replaced by more sensitive and less risky techniques, such as CT colonography and magnetic resonance colonography.

Retrograde hydrostatic irrigation enema-induced perforation of the sigmoid colon in a chronic renal failure patient before colonoscopy

We present a rare case of colon perforation caused by hydrostatic irrigation enema in a patient with chronic renal failure. A 76-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital because of an exacerbation of lumbar pain and increased difficulty in walking. She had a medical history of traumatic neck pain and chronic lower back pain, which had been treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for 8 years. On admission, the C-reactive protein level was 6.8 mg/dl, so we planned to do a colonoscopy to determine the cause of inflammation. The patient developed abdominal pain approximately 3.5 h after a pre-procedural enema was administered. An emergency operation was performed and a small perforation was found in the sigmoid colon. We conclude that the cause of the colon perforation was a combination of the use of a hydrostatic retrograde irrigation enema in a patient with chronic renal failure who had been treated with long-term NSAIDs.

Multi-detector CT-colonography in inflammatory bowel disease: prospective analysis of CT-findings to high-resolution video colonoscopy

AIM

Prospective analysis of multi-detector CT-colonography (MDCTC) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) compared to high-resolution video-endoscopy (HRVC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one patients (mean age 49.6 years) with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis underwent MDCTC (Somatom Volume Zoom, Siemens, Erlangen; 1mm collimation, Pitch 8, 100 mAs, 120 kVp). HRVC was performed within 2 h after MDCTC. MDCTC was analyzed by two blinded readers. MDCTC-findings including bowel wall alterations and extraintestinal changes were compared to results of HRVC.

RESULTS

Over-all-sensitivity was 100% for endoluminal lesions with correct diagnosis of two cancers. Acute and chronic IBD were correctly identified by MDCTC in 63.6%, and 100%, respectively, with a specificity of 75%, and 100%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of MDCTC for diagnosis of acute and chronic disease were best for chronic disease. Sensitivity was worst for acute ulcerative colitis and specificity was worst for acute Crohn's disease. Haustral loss was seen only in ulcerative colitis. Pseudopolyps and fistulae were findings exclusive to Crohn's disease. Particularly extraintestinal findings as increased vascularization and local lymphadenopathy correlated well with endoscopic definition of acute disease. Because of the possibly more vulnerable colonic wall in acute inflammatory bowel disease, the air inflation for MDCTC should be performed most carefully to avoid any risk of colonic perforation.

CONCLUSION

MDCTC may help to distinguish between patients with acute and chronic IBD. Especially extraintestinal complications, tumorous as well as pseudo-tumorous lesions can be detected with high sensitivity and specificity.

Colonoscopic perforations: a retrospective review

Colonic perforation is no longer a rare complication of colonoscopy. Our previous report identified 45 such iatrogenic injuries from 1980 through 1994 (3082 colonoscopies per year). This follow-up of the ensuing 7 years examines changing trends of endoscopic usage in addition to management and prognosis of patients with colonoscopic perforations. Retrospective analysis of 78,702 colonoscopies (1994 through 2000, 11,243 colonoscopies per year) allowed assessment of medical records in all patients treated at our institution for colonic perforation. Sixty-six patients from our institution (perforation rate, 0.084%; 1 per 1192 procedures) and six patients from outside institutions were treated for colonic perforation following colonoscopy (41 women, 31 men; ages, 30-92 years; median, 73 years). Sixty-two patients underwent laparotomy, while 10 were managed nonoperatively. All 10 patients managed nonoperatively were void of peritoneal irritation by physical examination; eight patients did well (median hospital stay, 5.5 days; range, 0-12), but one death (family declined operative intervention) and one pelvic abscess requiring percutaneous drainage were noted. Peritoneal irritation by physical examination was evident in 57 of 62 patients undergoing laparotomy. Perforations occurred throughout the colon: right, 22 (31%); transverse, 5 (7%); left, 44 (61%); and unknown, 1 (1%). Thirty-eight patients (61%) underwent primary repair or resection with anastomosis. Fecal diversion was used in 100% of patients with extensive peritoneal contamination (n = 12) and 40% of patients with moderate contamination (12 of 30). Perioperative morbidity (39%) and mortality (8%) were significant. Factors predicting a poor outcome included delayed diagnosis, extensive peritoneal contamination, and patients using anticoagulants (P < .05). Compared with our prior study, the present review highlights a higher prevalence of injury based on more frequent use of colonoscopy. Perforation rates remain around 0.08%. While nonoperative management is viable in patients void of peritonitis, expedient surgical intervention seems to facilitate patient recovery.