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

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening in China, and that when the screening was implemented in a specific region.

Methods

A 13-state Markov model was established to compare four screening protocols, including annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT1), biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT2), electronic colonoscopy every 10 years (e-CSPY10), and electronic colonoscopy every 5 years (e-CSPY5), with no screening from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The model simulated the health states of a cohort of 100,000 average-risk individuals aging from 50 to 75. Additionally, scenarios including the implementation in a specific region, starting from 40, and incompletely successful treatment of cancer were also analyzed.

Results

Annual and biennial FIT could save 8.13USD (US Dollar) and 44.96USD per person, and increase 0.0705QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) and 0.2341 QALYs compared with no screening, respectively. Annual FIT could decrease costs by 36.81USD per person and increase 0.1637 QALYs in comparison to biennial FIT. The results showed that both annual and biennial FIT for screening were dominant over no screening, and annual FIT was dominant over biennial FIT. The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) for e-CSPY10 were 1183.51USD/QALY and 536.66USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. The ICER for e-CSPY5 were 1158.16USD/QALY and 770.85USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. And the ICER for e-CSPY5 relative to e-CSPY10 was 358.71USD/QALY. All the ICER values were lower than the economic threshold of 2021 Chinese GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita in 2021(12554.42USD).

Conclusions

It is worthwhile to popularize CRC screening in mainland China, as FIT always saving costs and colonoscopy is cost-effective. Regions with high income can take electronic colonoscopy every 10 years, or even every 5 years into consideration when determining the specific strategies.

Small bowel perforation caused by thermal injury during colonic polypectomy: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforation is a known uncommon complication of colonoscopy. The perforation usually occurs in the colon itself. Rarely, colonoscopic procedures can also cause the perforations of the small intestine.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSES

We describe the case of a 70-year-old man who experienced abdominal pain several hours after electrical polypectomy in the transverse colon. Urgent abdominal computed tomography scans showed a few bubbles on the frontal surface around the liver and a little extraluminal free air in the upper abdomen. Urgent exploratory laparotomy revealed a round perforation with a diameter of approximately 5 mm in the ileum 80 cm proximal to the ileocecal valve, accompanied by the outflow of intestinal contents. A small bowel perforation by thermal injury was diagnosed during colonic polypectomy.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

The ileal perforation was repaired primarily after debridement of the perforation site and abdominal cavity. The patient recovered well after surgery. Histopathological examination of the perforation site demonstrated inflammatory necrosis and infiltration of inflammatory cells.

LESSONS

Small bowel perforation should be considered after colonoscopic procedures although the incidence is exceedingly rare. Urgent exploratory laparotomy is warranted when a visceral perforation is identified after colonoscopy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China: a modelling study

•

The current Shanghai CRC screening program is cost-effective.

•

Changing to a validated FIT would make the program more efficient.

•

The results were sensitive to an increase in the cost of the validated FIT.

•

The results were sensitive to more participation in screening and colonoscopy.

Background

The current community-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in Shanghai, launched in 2013, invited individuals aged 50–74 years to triennial screening with a qualitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and questionnaire-based risk assessment (RA). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the existing Shanghai screening program and compare it to using a validated two-sample quantitative FIT.

Methods

We simulated four strategies (no screening, Shanghai FIT, Shanghai FIT + RA and validated FIT) for the Shanghai screening program and evaluated CRC incidence, CRC mortality, the number of life years gained (LYG), the number of FITs, and colonoscopies required for each. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess the cost- effectiveness of each strategy.

Results

All screening modalities reduced CRC incidence and CRC mortality, gained extra number of LYG compared to no screening. Screening using the Shanghai FIT and validated FIT reduced CRC incidence from 45 cases to 43 per 1,000 simulated individuals (4.4%). Incidence was reduced to 42 cases (6.7%) using the Shanghai FIT + RA. All screening strategies reduced CRC mortality by 10.0% (from 10 to 9 deaths) and resulted in 6 to 7 LYG. The validated FIT was the most cost-effective among the evaluated strategies (ICER ¥26,461 per LYG).

Conclusions

Our findings show that the current Shanghai screening program is (cost-) effective compared to no screening, but changing to a validated FIT would make the program more efficient.

Analysis of the Characteristics of Colonoscopy Perforation and Risk Factors for Failure of Endoscopic Treatment

Background: Many studies have been done regarding perforation after colonoscopy, but few studies analyzed the risk factors of endoscopic treatment failure after colonoscopy perforation. This study aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics and treatment plan of those patients with perforation after colonoscopy diagnosis and the treatment and risk factors of failure to endoscopic treatment.

Method: This was a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent colonoscopy examination and treatment at the Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, from 04/2009 to 03/2020. The patients were grouped as perforation, treatment success, or failure (required laparoscopy or laparotomy).

Results: From April 2009 to March 2020, 43,470 patients were examined and treated with colonoscopy. There were 35 cases of intestinal perforation, for an incidence of 0.081%. Four patients had immediate surgical intervention (two patients with laparoscopic surgery and two with laparotomy surgery). Thirty-one (88.57%) patients underwent endoscopic treatment. Endoscopic treatment was successful in 20 patients and failed in 11. Compared with the failure group, the perforation size in the success group was smaller (7.60±4.85 vs. 14.4±7.03 mm, P=0.004), hospital stay was shorter (26.6±13.1 vs. 14.2±3.0, P=0.011), and hospitalization costs were lower (30,208±9506 vs. 23,053±6227 RMB, P=0.002). Multivariable logistic stepwise analysis showed that the absence of abdominal pain after therapeutic colonoscopy was independently associated with the success of endoscopic treatment.

Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment is logically the preferred modality for perforation management, leading to good recovery, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs of treatment. Postoperative abdominal pain is significantly related to the failure of endoscopic treatment.

Optimising colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China: a modelling study

INTRODUCTION

To reduce the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Shanghai, China, a CRC screening programme was commenced in 2013 inviting those aged 50-74 years to triennial screening with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and risk assessment. However, it is unknown whether this is the optimal screening strategy for this population. We aimed to determine the optimal CRC screening programme for Shanghai in terms of benefits, burden, harms and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Using Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon), we estimated the costs and effects of the current screening programme compared with a situation without screening. Subsequently, we estimated the benefits (life years gained (LYG)), burden (number of screening events, colonoscopies and false-positive tests), harms (number of colonoscopy complications) and costs (Renminb (¥)) of screening for 324 alternative screening strategies. We compared several different age ranges, screening modalities, intervals and FIT cut-off levels. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis determined the optimal strategy assuming a willingness-to-pay of ¥193 931 per LYG.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, the current screening programme reduced CRC incidence by 40% (19 cases per 1000 screened individuals) and CRC mortality by 67% (7 deaths). This strategy gained 32 additional life years, increased colonoscopy demand to 1434 per 1000 individuals and cost an additional ¥199 652. The optimal screening strategy was annual testing using a validated one-sample FIT, with a cut-off of 10 µg haemoglobin per gram from ages 45 to 80 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ¥62 107). This strategy increased LY by 0.18% and costs by 27%. Several alternative cost-effective strategies using a validated FIT offered comparable benefits to the current programme but lower burden and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the current screening programme in Shanghai is effective at reducing CRC incidence and mortality, the programme could be optimised using a validated FIT. When implementing CRC screening, jurisdictions with limited health resources should use a validated test.

Bilateral pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum during colonoscopy in a patient with intestinal Behcet’s disease: A case report

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is essential for the diagnosis of intestinal Behcet’s disease (BD), which is characterized by a typical oval-shaped ulcer in the ileocecal region. However, potential risks of colonoscopy have rarely been reported.

CASE SUMMARY

Herein, we describe a patient with intestinal BD who presented with decreased oxygen saturation and shortness of breath during a diagnostic colonoscopy. Bilateral pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pneumoperitoneum, pneumoretroperitoneum and subcutaneous emphysema of the neck, chest, abdomen, back and scrotum were confirmed by computed tomography scan. The sudden change in condition was considered to be associated with iatrogenic bowel perforation. After receiving closed thoracic drainage and conservative therapy, the patient was discharged in stable condition.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopists should be aware of the risks of colonoscopy in patients with intestinal BD and the possibility of pneumothorax associated with intestinal perforation and make adequate preparations before colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy Complications in an Iranian Teaching Hospital

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is generally a safe procedure with a limited number of adverse events. Few studies have addressed the rate of adverse events in teaching hospitals. This study aimed to investigate the rate of complications after colonoscopy performed by gastroenterology fellows in a teaching hospital in Tehran. METHODS: A historical cohort study was carried out to link the colonoscopy reports and the hospital information system to identify serious adverse events leading to unplanned hospitalization, unplanned procedures or interventions (e.g. surgery), prolongation of existing hospitalization, or death within 30 days after colonoscopy. RESULTS: We included 9928 colonoscopies (mean age of the patients 53.0±15.9 years, 52.3% men) in this study. In-hospital patients comprised (34.8%) of the procedures. The indications of colonoscopy included 7137 diagnostic (71.9%), and 2519 screening (25.4%) reasons. Colorectal polyps were found in 2005 (20.2%) patients. Major complications were seen in 17 patients (0.2%), including serious bleeding in seven patients, cardiopulmonary complications in five patients, perforation in four patients, and sepsis in one patient. CONCLUSION: Serious adverse events after colonoscopy are relatively rare. The rate of complications does not appear to be higher in an academic teaching hospital when performed by fellows under supervision.

Gastrointestinal and Nongastrointestinal Complications of Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy in the Real World: A Nationwide Standard Cohort Using the Common Data Model Database

Background/Aims

The global trend of an expanding aged population has increased concerns about complications correlated with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in elderly patients; however, there have been few reports published on this issue.

Methods

In this retrospective, observational cohort study performed between 2012 and 2017, serious complications of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and colonoscopic polypectomy were compared between patients according to age (≥65 years vs 18–64 years). We used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment-National Patient Samples database, previously converted to the standardized Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership-Common Data Model. Serious complications within 30 days of the procedure included both GI complications (bleeding and perforation) and non-GI complications (cerebrovascular accident [CVA], acute myocardial infarction [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and death).

Results

A total of 387,647 patients who underwent EGD, 241,094 who underwent colonoscopy, and 89,059 who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy were assessed as part of this investigation. During the study period, endoscopic procedures in the older group steadily increased in number in all endoscopy groups (all p<0.001). Further, pooled complication rates of bleeding, CVA, AMI, CHF, and death were approximately three times higher among older patients who underwent EGD or colonoscopy. Moreover, pooled complication rates of CVA, AMI, CHF, and death were approximately 2.2 to 5.0 times higher among older patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy.

Conclusions

Elderly patients experienced approximately three times more GI and non-GI complications after EGD or colonoscopy than young patients. Physicians should pay attention to the potential risks of GI endoscopy in elderly patients.

Incidence and risk factors of colonoscopic post-polypectomy bleeding and perforation in patients with end-stage renal disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopic polypectomy in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are at risks of post-polypectomy bleeding and perforation, but evidences are limited. This study aimed to determine the incident polypectomy complications among ESRD patients.

METHODS

In the nationwide ESRD cohort, a propensity score matched case-control study design was conducted to assess risk associated with post-polypectomy bleeding and perforation using the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Research Database from 1997 to 2013 for adults aged 40 years and older; 7011 ESRD and 19 118 non-ESRD patients met the study criteria. A total of 5302 patients in each group were matched for further analyses. The primary endpoint was post-polypectomy bleeding or bowel perforation in 30 days. The secondary endpoint was mortality and length of hospital stay for the bleeding complications requiring hospitalization.

RESULTS

Overall incidences of post-polypectomy bleeding or perforation in patients with ESRD was higher than the non-ESRD group (5.83% vs 1.78%, P < 0.0001) in the matched cohort. High risk of adverse outcomes was associated with ESRD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-3.05), female patient (aOR, 1.7, 95% CI, 1.37-2.11), history of acute myocardial infarction (aOR, 1.91, 95% CI, 1.1-3.32), liver disease (aOR, 1.79, 95% CI, 1.37-2.34), diabetes (aOR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.16-1.82), cancer (aOR, 1.4, 95% CI, 1.09-1.81), inpatient setting (aOR, 13.19, 95% CI, 9.73-17.88), and prior use of clopidogrel (aOR, 1.61, 95% CI, 1.03-2.52) and warfarin (aOR, 2.03, 95% CI, 1.21-3.41).

CONCLUSIONS

End-stage renal disease was associated with approximately twofold higher risk of colonoscopic post-polypectomy bleeding or perforation and should be cautiously performed in this special population cohort.

The impact of sedation on quality metrics of colonoscopy: a single-center experience of 48,838 procedures

PURPOSE

Investigation of the role of sedation during colonoscopy is meaningful as the advantages of colonoscopy performing with sedation are still controversial.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent colonoscopy in our institution were retrospectively analyzed. The sedation rate, adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), iatrogenic colonic perforation rate (ICP) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 48,838 colonoscopies (24,498 in males) dated from July 2007 to February 2017 were analyzed. The median age was 50 years (range 16-85 years). An overall sedation rate was 80.38%. The PDR was 26.77%, and was not statistically different between colonoscopy with or without sedation (26.67% vs 27.22, p = 0.474). ADR was 12.9% regardless of applying sedation or not (13.0% vs 12.44%, p = 0.337). The CIR was 87.42% in all examinations with an adjusted CIR of 90.34%, and was higher when performed with sedation than without sedation (88.92% vs 80.64%, p < 0.0001). Five cases (0.01%) of ICP were reported, all of which occurred in patients under sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sedation is associated with increased CIR, but ADR and PDR remain unchanged with or without sedation. However, perforation rate, albeit very low, is significantly higher in sedated patients.

The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Background

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised.

Methods

Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg^− 1 h^− 1 lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg^− 1 propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg^− 1 propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol.

Results

A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) (P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) (P = 0.003); the calculated “unit propofol” infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg^− 1 min^− 1) (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy.

Trial registration

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).

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.

Recognition and Management of Colonic Perforation following Endoscopy

Although rare, perforation can be a devastating complication of colonoscopy. Incidence ranges from 0.012 to 0.65% during diagnostic procedures and is higher in therapeutic procedures. Early diagnosis and management are of paramount importance to decrease morbidity. Diagnostic imaging after colonoscopy can reveal extraintestinal air, but overall clinical status including leukocytosis, fever, pain, and peritonitis is equally important to determine management. With the expanding availability of complex endoscopic interventions, an increasing number of perforations are recognized during colonoscopy or immediately afterward based on high degree of suspicion. Colonoscopic management of these early perforations may be feasible and avoid the morbidity of surgery. Patients who require surgery may be managed with laparoscopic or open surgical techniques. Surgical management may consist of primary repair of the injury, resection with anastomosis, or resection with ostomy. Mechanical bowel preparation before endoscopy decreases fecal contamination after perforation, often obviating the need for ostomy creation.

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.

Surgical Management of Iatrogenic Perforation of the Gastrointestinal Tract: 15 Years of Experience in a Single Center

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) tract perforation during endoscopy is a rare but severe complication. The aim of this study was to determine predictors of morbidity and mortality after iatrogenic endoscopic perforation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All cases with iatrogenic endoscopic perforation receiving surgery at a tertiary referral center in a 15-year period (2000-2015) were retrospectively analyzed. Demographics, type of endoscopy, site of perforation, operative procedure, morbidity and mortality were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify parameters predicting survival.

RESULTS

A total of 106.492 endoscopies were performed, and 82 (0.08%) patients were diagnosed with GI perforation. Most perforations (63.4%) occurred in the lower GI tract, compared to 36.6% in the upper GI tract. In 21 cases (25%), perforation was noticed during endoscopy, whereas 61 perforations (75%) were diagnosed during the further clinical course. Operative care was applied within 24 h in 61%. Surgery of perforations was almost completely performed maintaining the intestinal continuity (68%), whereas diversion was performed in 32%. Mortality was associated with age above 70 (OR 4.89, p = 0.027), ASA class > 3 (OR 4.08, p = 0.018), delayed surgery later than 24 h after perforation (OR 5.9, p = 0.015), peritonitis/mediastinitis intraoperatively (OR 4.68, p = 0.031) and severe postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III (OR 5.12, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of iatrogenic endoscopic perforation is low, although it is associated with a serious impact on morbidity and mortality. Delayed management worsens prognosis. To achieve successful management of endoscopic perforations, early diagnosis is essential in cases of deviation from the normal post-interventional course, especially in elderly.

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.

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Primary Repair in the Treatment of Colonic Perforation After Colonoscopy: A Review of 40,127 Patients

BACKGROUND

In recent years, increasing colonoscopy use increases the incidence of colonic perforation. Colonic perforation during colonoscopy is a rare but extremely serious complication. Traditionally, the management of colonic perforation is explorative laparotomy with bowel resection. Treatment using laparoscopic approach is a novel approach, and has been reported in some recent literatures. Nowadays, the using of laparoscopic primary repair in treatment of colonoscopic perforations has not been confirmed. This study retrospectively reviewed our experiences in treating colonoscopic perforations by laparoscopic primary repair.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic primary repair in the treatment of colonic perforations during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Between January 2003 and December 2014, data were collected retrospectively on all patients who underwent colonoscopy and compared the recovery parameters and morbidity of patients who underwent laparoscopic primary repair versus those who had open surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 40,127 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. There were 24 patients who underwent primary repair [13 underwent laparoscopic surgery (LS) and 8 underwent open surgery (OS)]. There were no demographic differences between the LS and OS groups (P>0.05). Compared with OS group, patients who underwent laparoscopic repair had a significantly shorter incision length (LS: 3.15±0.35 mm vs. OS: 12.60±2.87 mm, P=0.000), fewer blood loss (LS: 28.54±10.82 mL vs. OS: 159.25±46.90 mL, P=0.000), shorter postoperative hospital stay (LS: 8.31±1.93 d vs. OS: 12.38±1.41 d, P=0.000), and shorter postoperative fasting time (LS: 3.38±0.7 d vs. OS: 5.25±0.71 d, P=0.000). The operative time of LS group was a little longer than OS group, but there were no significant differences (LS: 86.31±22.22 min vs. OS: 75.125 ±14.24 min, P=NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic primary repair is safe and effective in resolving colonic perforation due to colonoscopy, and it might offer benefits over the open approach.

Editorial: Polyps, Pain, and Propofol: Is Water Exchange the Panacea for All?

Water exchange (WE) is a relatively new method of endoscope insertion during colonoscopy. Although its origin is rooted in the insertion phase of colonoscopy, allowing the procedure to proceed with more ease, less discomfort, and less or no sedation, its most important value may reside in the withdrawal phase. In this issue, a randomized, prospective study from China specifically designed to examine the effect of WE on adenoma detection rate (ADR) confirms previous findings: WE improves ADR. Here we discuss the trial results, the benefits of WE, and the challenges that may preclude or delay widespread WE implementation.

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.

Fecal calprotectin for diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease: A meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the value of the fecal calprotectin in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients systematically.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, and Wanfang digital journals database were searched for the studies which evaluated the value of the fecal calprotectin in the diagnosis of IBD patients. Meta-Disc 1.40 was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC), the area under the curve (AUC), and Q* were also calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies involving 721 IBD patients and 664 controls were finally included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95%CI: 0.84-0.88) and 0.76 (95%CI: 0.74-0.79), respectively. The AUC was 0.9169, and the Q* was 0.8498.

CONCLUSION

Fecal calprotectin is a good noninvasive marker with high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of IBD patients.

A long-term follow-up study on the prognosis of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) are divided into homogeneous (LST-G-H), nodular mixed (LST-G-M), flat elevated (LST-NG-F), and pseudodepressed (LST-NG-PD) subtypes. We hypothesized that based on the rates of advanced histology, the recurrence rates of the LST-NG-PD and LST-G-M groups may be higher than those of the other subgroups.

METHODS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was performed in 156 patients with a total of 177 LSTs. The clinicopathological features and long-term prognosis of ESD according to specific subtype were investigated.

RESULTS

LSTs were most commonly found in the rectum, and the highest percentage of rectal lesions was observed in the LST-G-M group (71.1% vs overall 55.4%, P = .032). The LST-G-M lesions were larger (60 ± 22 mm vs 40 ± 33 mm, P = .034) than the LST-G-H lesions. The LST-G-M group also demonstrated more high-grade intraepithelial neoplasias (32.2% vs 10.8%, P = .003) and submucosal carcinomas (13.6% vs 1.5%, P = .010) compared with the LST-G-H group. The LST-NG-PD group exhibited the highest incidence of submucosally invasive cancer (16.7%). The overall perforation rate was 2.3%. The perforation rate in the LST-NG group was higher than that in the LST-G group (5.7% vs 0.8%, P = .047). All recurrences (7.7%) were found by colonoscopy without any detection of cancers, and no difference was found among the subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were observed among subgroups with 44.4 ± 16.3 months of follow-up. Considering that all recurrences were discovered by colonoscopy and most could be cured by repeated ESD, the LSTs of all subgroups require more intensive follow-up compared with smaller adenomatous lesions.

Colonoscopic Perforations, What is Our Experience in a Training Hospital?

The aim of this study was to describe our experience in patients treated with the diagnosis of colonoscopic perforation. A retrospective institutional computer-based search of the patients treated with the diagnosis of colonoscopic perforation between July 2009 and May 2014 was undertaken. Our study included 16 patients. In 9 (56%) patients, perforations occurred during the diagnostic colonoscopy. Snare polypectomy was the causative factor in 5 patients associated with therapeutic colonoscopy. The perforation was significantly higher in patients who underwent therapeutic colonoscopy than those had diagnostic colonoscopy (P<0.007). The sigmoid colon was the most common perforation site (62.5%). Twelve patients (75%) were treated by surgically, 3 (19%) patients by conservatively, and 1 (6%) by endoscopic clipping. Early recognition of the perforation is critical. Therefore, a high index of suspicion is essential for the prompt and accurate diagnosis.

Laparoscopic endoloop technique - A novel approach of managing iatrogenic caecal perforation and literature review

•

With our case we have adopted an innovative approach of using endolooping for an early perforation that was within a short distance of the appendicular base, applied proximal to the site of the perforation.

•

In our surgery, the area of ischemic injury can be easily visualized through the laparoscopy and including fresh and healthy tissue margins in the loop is the hallmark of safety for this simple technique.

•

The endoloop technique described, undertaken during a laparoscopy is a novel approach. It is a simple and effective method, reminding clinicians to adapt techniques when necessary.

•

Nevertheless, it is only limited to perforations around the appendicular base. The endolooping technique may not be suitable for late presentation, large perforations with ischemic or friable tissue, and severe peritonitis. In such cases, the use of other methods, such as wedge resection or stapling would be safer.

Introduction

An iatrogenic caecal perforation is rare, but a serious complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We present a 4 min and 50 s video on a new improvisation undertaken during laparoscopic management of post-polypectomy caecal perforation.

Presentation of case

Our patient presented with an acute abdomen following endoscopic polypectomy. At surgery, the site of caecal perforation was close to the appendicular base with devitalization tissue, secondary to diathermy usage. The hallmark of safety within this novel technique included fresh healthy tissue margins within the endoloop (detachable snare ligation) and ensuring no ischemic tissue was gathered. Complete freeing of the appendix and meso-appendicular base was required and securing three endoloops proximal to the site of perforation. The post-operative course was uneventful.

Discussion

The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) 2013 guidelines suggested an early laparoscopic approach is a safe and effective treatment for colonoscopy-related colonic perforation. There are no national guidelines and the management is dictated by the clinical condition of the patient, co-morbidity, size and site of perforation as well as the scale of bowel preparation, and surgical experience.

Conclusion

The endoloop technique described, undertaken during a laparoscopy is a novel approach. It is a simple and effective method, reminding clinicians to adapt techniques when necessary. Nevertheless, it is only limited to perforations around the appendicular base.