Incidence, risk, management, and outcomes of iatrogenic full-thickness large bowel injury associated with 56,882 colonoscopies in 14 Lithuanian hospitals

Endoscopic management of colonic perforations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We will review the current management of colonic perforations, with particular emphasis on iatrogenic perforations caused by colonoscopy, the leading etiology. We will focus on recently developed endoscopic techniques and technologies that obviate morbid emergency surgery (the standard management approach in years past).

RECENT FINDINGS

Colonic perforations are rare but potentially fatal complications of both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy resulting in death in approximately 5% of cases with the mortality increasing with delay in diagnosis and treatment. As novel endoscopic techniques and tools have flourished in recent years, our approach to management of these perforations has evolved. With the availability of newer tools such as over the scope clips, enhanced through the scope clips and novel endoscopic suturing devices, colonic perforations can be managed effectively in many or most patients without the morbidity of surgical interventions.

SUMMARY

With expanding use of colonoscopy, inadvertent outcomes such as perforations are bound to increase as well. Early diagnosis permits minimally invasive, nonsurgical, endoscopic management in most cases if the expertise and tools are available. Centers with high colonoscopy volumes including therapeutic procedures would be well served to invest in the requisite technologies and expertise.

Methods of Surgical Repair for Iatrogenic Sigmoid Colon Perforation Following Colonoscopy: A Case Report and Literature Review

Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a relatively infrequent yet perilous complication arising from both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies, potentially leading to severe septic complications and increased morbidity or mortality. Given the gravity of potential complications, surgical intervention stands as the principal treatment strategy, with various modalities selected based on clinical discretion. In this context, we present the case of a patient who underwent primary laparoscopic repair following the identification of a sigmoid colon perforation during a routine colonoscopy. Intraoperatively, a Jackson-Pratt drain was placed to facilitate postoperative monitoring and drainage. The patient's hospitalization extended to a total of seven days due to sustained drainage and leukocytosis, highlighting the complexities of managing postoperative complications in such cases. This report underscores the current landscape of published data guiding the surgical management of iatrogenic colonic perforation following colonoscopy and highlights both the existing strengths and gaps within the current body of literature. As colonic perforation remains a critical concern in endoscopic procedures, a comprehensive understanding of optimal surgical interventions is crucial for minimizing patient morbidity and ensuring successful outcomes.

Incidence of colonoscopy-related perforation and risk factors for poor outcomes: 3-year results from a prospective, multicenter registry (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Perforation is a life-threatening adverse event of colonoscopy that often requires hospitalization and surgery. We aimed to prospectively assess the incidence of colonoscopy-related perforation in a multicenter registry and to analyze the clinical factors associated with poor clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was conducted at six tertiary referral hospitals between 2017 and 2020, and included patients with colonic perforation after colonoscopy. Poor clinical outcomes were defined as mortality, surgery, and prolonged hospitalization (> 13 days). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with poor clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 84,673 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 56 had colon perforation (0.66/1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.86). Perforation occurred in 12 of 63,602 diagnostic colonoscopies (0.19/1000, 95% CI 0.11-0.33) and 44 of 21,071 therapeutic colonoscopies (2.09/1000, 95% CI 1.55-2.81). Of these, 15 (26.8%) patients underwent surgery, and 25 (44.6%) patients had a prolonged hospital stay. One patient (1.8%) died after perforation from a diagnostic colonoscopy. In the multivariate analysis, diagnostic colonoscopy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 196.43, p = 0.025) and abdominal rebound tenderness (aOR 17.82, p = 0.012) were independent risk factors for surgical treatment. The location of the sigmoid colon (aOR 18.57, p = 0.048), delayed recognition (aOR 187.71, p = 0.008), and abdominal tenderness (aOR 63.20, p = 0.017) were independent risk factors for prolonged hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study demonstrated that the incidence of colonoscopy-related perforation was 0.66/1000. The incidence rate was higher in therapeutic colonoscopy, whereas the risk for undergoing surgery was higher in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. Colonoscopy indication (diagnostic vs. therapeutic), physical signs, the location of the sigmoid perforation, and delayed recognition were independent risk factors for poor clinical outcomes in colonoscopy-related perforation.

A Case of Tension Pneumothorax After Diverticular Rupture During Diagnostic Colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is routinely used for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases. Bowel perforation is a rare but severe complication that significantly increases the morbidity and mortality. Tension pneumothorax is an uncommon complication of colonic perforation. We present a case of the successful treatment of a patient with tension pneumothorax, following colonoscopy, by using tube thoracostomy and Hartman-type resection of the rectosigmoid junction and proximal sigmoid. Surgeons, anesthesiologists, and endoscopists should consider the possibility of pneumothorax as a rare complication of colonoscopy. Early detection and urgent treatment is the key to successful management.

Clinical Characteristics of Colonoscopic Perforation and Risk Factors for Complications After Surgical Treatment

Background: There are few studies on postoperative complications after colonoscopic perforation. We aimed to study clinical characteristics and treatment after colonoscopic perforation, and to determine risk factors for postoperative complications by surgical treatment of colonoscopy perforation. Methods: Cases with perforation within 7 days after colonoscopy from January 2017 to December 2019 were collected for retrospective analysis. Data regarding demography, clinical information, colonoscopy, perforation, and operation were collected. Single-factor analysis and Spearman correlation analysis were employed to determine the risk factors of postoperative complications. Results: A total of 35,243 colonoscopy examinations were performed during the study period, of which 18 cases of colonoscopic perforation were included in the criteria. Most perforations occurred in the rectosigmoid junction (3 cases) and sigmoid colon (11 cases). All perforation patients received operational treatment, and the incidence of postoperative complications was 38.9%, but no deaths. There were 7 patients who developed postoperative complications. Spearman correlation analysis showed that preoperative medication of glucocorticoid and nonrectosigmoid perforation were positively related to postoperative complications (P < .05), while perforation diagnosed immediately and satisfying intestinal cleanliness were negatively related to it (P < .05). Conclusion: Perforation is a rare but serious complication of colonoscopy, which mostly occurs in the rectosigmoid junction and sigmoid colon. Laparoscopic primary repair is safe and feasible in resolving colonic perforation due to colonoscopy, and postoperative complications were significantly related to perforation site, preoperative medication of glucocorticoid, perforation diagnosis time, and intestinal cleanliness.

Management of colonoscopic perforation: a systematic review and treatment algorithm

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review is to evaluate and summarize the current strategies used in the management of colonoscopic perforations as well as propose a modern treatment algorithm.

METHODS

Articles published between January 2004 and January 2019 were screened. A total of 167 reports were identified in combined literature search, of which 61 articles were selected after exclusion of duplicate and unrelated articles. Only studies that reported on the management of endoscopic perforation in an adult population were retrieved for review. Case reports and case series of 8 patients or less were not considered. Ultimately, 19 articles were considered eligible for review.

RESULTS

A total of 744 cases of colonoscopic perforations were reported in 19 major articles. The cause of perforation was mentioned in 16 articles. Colonoscopic perforations were reported as a consequence of diagnostic colonoscopies in 222 cases and therapeutic colonoscopies in 248 cases. The site of perforation was mentioned in 486 cases. Sigmoid colon was the predominant site followed by the cecum. The management of colonoscopic perforations was reported in a total of 741 patients. Surgical intervention was employed in 75% of the patients, of these 15% were laparoscopic and 85% required laparotomy. The predominant surgical intervention was primary repair.

CONCLUSION

Management strategies of colon perforations depend upon the etiology, size, severity, location, available expertise, and general health status. Usually, peritonitis, sepsis, or hemodynamic compromise requires immediate surgical management. Endoscopic techniques are under continuous evolution. Newer developments have offered high success rate with least amount of post-procedure complications. However, there is a need for further studies to compare the newer endoscopic techniques in terms of success rate, cost, complications, and the affected part of colon.

Complications Following Colonoscopy in a Nationwide Standard Cohort: A Retrospective Case-control Study

Background/Aims

Despite the many reports of colonoscopy complications worldwide, few studies have been performed at the population level in Korea. In this study, a population-based study was performed to evaluate the incidence of post-colonoscopy perforations compared to a control group.

Methods

Between January 2011 and December 2011, data for all cases (age over 45) who underwent a colonoscopy were collected from National Health Insurance Service using a random sampling method. The clinical characteristics and perforation incidence (within 30 days after the colonoscopy) of cases were identified, and cases were then compared with controls who had not undergone a colonoscopy.

Results

Among 1,380,000 subjects, 31,177 cases and 62,354 controls were identified. Perforation occurred in 14 patients (0.04%) in the case group and one patient (<0.01%) in the control group (RR, 28.0; 95% CI 3.7-212.9, p<0.001). Subgroup analysis was followed according to the endoscopic procedure, gender and age. In subgroup analysis, colonoscopy-associated perforations occurred more in the therapeutic procedure (RR, 26; 95% CI 1.46-461.46), male (RR, 50; 95% CI 2.96-844.41), and age of 45-60 years (RR, 30; 95% CI 1.71-525.23).

Conclusions

A colonoscopy procedure is related to an increased risk of perforation at the population level. In addition, the therapeutic procedure, male, and age of 45-60 years appeared to be associated with an increased risk of perforation.

Adverse events related to colonoscopy: Global trends and future challenges

Colonoscopy is a widely used method for diagnosing and treating colonic disease. The number of colonoscopies is increasing worldwide, and concerns about associated adverse events are growing. Large-scale studies using big data for post-colonoscopy complications have been reported. A colon perforation is a severe complication with a relatively high mortality rate. The perforation rate, as reported in large studies (≥ 50,000 colonoscopies) published since 2000, ranges from 0.005-0.085%. The trend in the overall perforation rate in the past 15 years has not changed significantly. Bleeding is a more common adverse event than perforation. Recent large studies (≥ 50,000 colonoscopies) have reported post-colonoscopy bleeding occurring in 0.001-0.687% of cases. Most studies about adverse events related to colonoscopy were performed in the West, and relatively few studies have been conducted in the East. The incidence of post-colonoscopy complications increases in elderly patients or patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. It is important to use a unified definition and refined data to overcome the limitations of previous studies. In addition, a structured training program for endoscopists and a systematic national management program are needed to reduce post-colonoscopy complications. In this review, we discuss the current trends in colonoscopy related to adverse events, as well as the challenges to be addressed through future research.

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.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for the treatment of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforations (ICP) are a rare but severe complication of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the operative and post-operative outcomes of laparoscopy vs. open surgery performed for the management of ICP.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out on Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus databases from January 1990 to June 2016. Clinical studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgical procedures for the treatment for ICP were retrieved and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 6 retrospective studies were selected, including 161 patients with ICP who underwent surgery. Laparoscopy was used in 55% of the patients, with a conversion rate of 10%. The meta-analysis shows that the laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly fewer post-operative complications compared to open surgery (18.2% vs. 53.5% respectively; Relative risk, RR: 0.32 [95%CI: 0.19-0.54; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%]) and shorter hospital stay (mean difference -5.35 days [95%CI: -6.94 to -3.76; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%]). No differences between the two surgical approaches were observed for postoperative mortality, need of re-intervention, and operative time.

CONCLUSION

The present study highlights the outcomes of the surgical management of an endoscopic complication that is not yet considered in clinical guidelines. Based on the current available literature, the laparoscopic approach appears to provide better outcomes in terms of postoperative complications and length of hospital stay than open surgery in the case of ICP surgical repair. However, the creation of large prospective registries of patients with ICP would be a step forward in addressing the lack of evidence concerning the surgical treatment of this endoscopic complication.

Predictors of Morbidity and Mortality After Surgery for Intestinal Perforation

Purpose

An intestinal perforation is a rare condition, but has a high mortality rate, even after immediate surgical intervention. The clinical predictors of postoperative morbidity and mortality are still not well established, so this study attempted to identify risk factors for postoperative morbidity and mortality after surgery for an intestinal perforation.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the cases of 117 patients who underwent surgery for an intestinal perforation at a single institution in Korea from November 2008 to June 2014. Factors related with postoperative mortality at 1 month and other postoperative complications were investigated.

Results

The mean age of enrolled patients was 66.0 ± 15.8 years and 66% of the patients were male. Fifteen patients (13%) died within 1 month after surgical treatment. Univariate analysis indicated that patient-related factors associated with mortality were low systolic and diastolic blood pressure, low serum albumin, low serum protein, low total cholesterol, and high blood urea nitrogen; the surgery-related factor associated with mortality was feculent ascites. Multivariate analysis using a logistic regression indicated that low systolic blood pressure and feculent ascites independently increased the risk for mortality; postoperative complications were more likely in both females and those with low estimated glomerular filtration rates and elevated serum C-reactive protein levels.

Conclusion

Various factors were associated with postoperative clinical outcomes of patients with an intestinal perforation. Morbidity and mortality following an intestinal perforation were greater in patients with unstable initial vital signs, poor nutritional status, and feculent ascites.

Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies

OBJECTIVES

Many studies around the world addressed the post-colonoscopy complications, but their pooled prevalence and time trends are unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to examine the pooled prevalence of post-colonoscopy complications ("perforation", "bleeding", and "mortality"), stratified by colonoscopy indication. Temporal variability in the complication rate was assessed.

METHODS

We queried Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library for population-based studies examining post-colonoscopy complications (within 30 days), performed from 2001 to 2015 and published by 1 December 2015. We determined pooled prevalence of perforations, post-colonoscopy bleeding, post-polypectomy bleeding, and mortality.

RESULTS

We retrieved 1,074 studies, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, pooled prevalences for perforation, post-colonoscopy bleeding, and mortality were 0.5/1,000 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.7), 2.6/1,000 (95% CI 1.7-3.7), and 2.9/100,000 (95% CI 1.1-5.5) colonoscopies. Colonoscopy with polypectomy was associated with a perforation rate of 0.8/1,000 (95% CI 0.6-1.0) and a post-polypectomy bleeding rate of 9.8/1,000 (95% CI 7.7-12.1). Complication rate was lower for screening/surveillance than for diagnostic examinations. Time-trend analysis showed that post-colonoscopy bleeding declined from 6.4 to 1.0/1,000 colonoscopies, whereas the perforation and mortality rates remained stable from 2001 to 2015. Overall, considerable heterogeneity was observed in most of the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Worldwide, the post-colonoscopy complication rate remained stable or even declined over the past 15 years. The findings of this meta-analysis encourage continued efforts to achieve and maintain safety targets in colonoscopy practice.

Complications during colonoscopy: prevention, diagnosis, and management

Colonoscopy is largely performed in daily clinical practice for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Although infrequent, different complications may occur during the examination, mostly related to the operative procedures. These complications range from asymptomatic and self-limiting to serious, requiring a prompt medical, endoscopic or surgical intervention. In this review, the complications that may occur during colonoscopy are discussed, with a particular focus on prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches.

Management of bleeding and perforation after colonoscopy

Bleeding is a relatively rare complication occurring mainly after snare polypectomy. The majority of cases can be managed successfully by endoscopic means leaving very few cases which will ultimately need an operation. Colonic perforation, on the other hand is a serious complication that requires intensive and careful management. Prompt recognition of the perforation during the procedure allows, in selected cases, immediate endoscopic closure with an uneventful and full recovery followed by close monitoring and surgical management in case of clinical deterioration. The criteria for the right selection of perforation cases amenable to endoscopic treatment do still need to be confirmed by prospective studies and further experience is required before a standard algorithm on the endoscopic management of perforations is developed.

Prompt management is most important for colonic perforation after colonoscopy

Purpose

The incidence of complications after colonoscopy is very low. The complications after colonoscopy that are of clinical concern are bleeding and perforation. The present study was conducted to determine the clinical outcomes and the risk factors of a colostomy or a colectomy after colonoscopic colon perforation.

Methods

From March 2009 to December 2012, the records of all patients who were treated for colorectal perforation after colonoscopy were reviewed retrospectively. The following parameters were evaluated: age, sex, purpose of colonoscopy, management of the colonic perforation, and interval from colonoscopy to the diagnosis of a colonic perforation. A retrospective analysis was performed to determine the risk factors associated with major surgery for the treatment of a colon perforation after colonoscopy.

Results

A total 27 patients were included in the present study. The mean age was 62 years, and 16 were males. The purpose of colonoscopy was diagnostic in 18 patients. The most common perforation site was the sigmoid colon. Colonic perforation was diagnosed during colonoscopy in 14 patients, just after colonoscopy in 5 patients, and 24 hours or more after colonoscopy in 8 patients. For the treatment of colonic perforation, endoscopic clipping was performed in 3 patients, primary closure in 15 patients, colon resection in 2 patients, Hartmann's procedures in 4 patients, and diverting colostomy in 3 patients. If the diagnosis of perforation after colonoscopy was delayed for more than 24 hours, the need for major treatment was increased significantly.

Conclusion

Although a colonic perforation after colonoscopy is rare, if the morbidity and the mortality associated with the colonic perforation are to be reduced, prompt diagnosis and management are very important.

International multicenter experience with an over-the-scope clipping device for endoscopic management of GI defects (with video)

BACKGROUND

The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) provides more durable and full-thickness closure as compared with standard clips. Only case reports and small case series have reported on outcomes of OTSC closure of GI defects.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a large, multicenter experience with OTSCs for the management of GI defects. Secondary goals were to determine success rate by type of defect and type of therapy and to determine predictors of treatment outcomes.

DESIGN

Multicenter, retrospective study.

SETTING

Multiple, international, academic centers.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients who underwent attempted OTSC placement for GI defects, either as a primary or as a rescue therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

OTSC placement to attempt closure of GI defects.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Long-term success of the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 188 patients (108 fistulae, 48 perforations, 32 leaks) were included. Long-term success was achieved in 60.2% of patients during a median follow-up of 146 days. Rate of successful closure of perforations (90%) and leaks (73.3%) was significantly higher than that of fistulae (42.9%) (P < .05). Long-term success was significantly higher when OTSCs were applied as primary therapy (primary 69.1% vs rescue 46.9%; P = .004). On multivariate analysis, patients who had OTSC placement for perforations and leaks had significantly higher long-term success compared with those who had fistulae (OR 51.4 and 8.36, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design and multiple operators with variable expertise with the OTSC device.

CONCLUSION

OTSC is safe and effective therapy for closure of GI defects. Clinical success is best achieved in patients undergoing closure of perforations or leaks when OTSC is used for primary or rescue therapy. Type of defect is the best predictor of successful long-term closure.

Risk of colon cancer after computed tomography-diagnosed acute diverticulitis: is routine colonoscopy necessary?

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing diverticulitis and for routine follow-up colonoscopy to rule out cancer. Scientific data to support routine colonoscopy after acute diverticulitis are scarce and conflicting. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of colon cancer mimicking diverticulitis, and hence the need for routine colonoscopy after CT-diagnosed acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of patients treated for acute diverticulitis in a single academic institution during 2006-2010. Data regarding age, sex, laboratory parameters, prior diverticulitis, surgical operations, pathology reports, and CT characteristics were collected. Risk factors for finding colon cancer after CT-diagnosed acute diverticulitis were identified by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 633 patients with CT-diagnosed acute diverticulitis. Of these patients, 97 underwent emergency resection, whereas 536 were treated conservatively, 394 of whom underwent colonoscopy. The findings showed 17 cancers (2.7 %) in patients with an initial diagnosis of acute diverticulitis. As shown by CT, 16 cancer patients (94 %) had abscess, whereas one patient had pericolic extraluminal air but no abscess. Of the patients with abscess, 11.4 % had cancer mimicking acute diverticulitis. No cancer was found in the patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis. Besides abscess, other independent risk factors for cancer included suspicion of cancer by a radiologist, thickness of the bowel wall exceeding 15 mm, no diverticula observed, and previously undiagnosed metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine colonoscopy after CT-proven uncomplicated diverticulitis seems to be unnecessary, but colonoscopy should be performed for patients with a diagnosis of diverticular abscess.

Specimens from biopsies of colorectal polyps often harbor additional diagnoses

Objectives. The utility of examining specimens from colorectal biopsies of polyps for nonneoplastic diseases is currently unknown. Our objectives were to characterize such additional diagnoses that could be rendered. Methods. We retrospectively and prospectively reviewed specimens from endoscopic biopsies of colorectal polyps obtained during routine screening or surveillance. Results. 17 of 168 specimens (10.1%) contained additional diagnoses, including schistosomiasis, eosinophilic colitis, intestinal spirochetosis, melanosis coli, and other entities. These findings were easily overlooked because they often affected mucosa that was spared by the polyps or were often evident only at high magnification. Schistosomiasis, eosinophilic colitis, and intestinal spirochetosis were clinically occult. Conclusions. Specimens from biopsies of colorectal polyps often harbor other diagnoses, in addition to polyps, and can be simultaneously screened for polyps and examined for nonneoplastic diseases. Detection of other diagnoses in addition to polyps requires awareness, examination at high magnification, and examination of areas spared by the polyps.