Splenic Rupture Following Colonoscopy

Splenic rupture following endoscopic mucosal resection: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

This study aims to highlight the rare but severe complication of splenic rupture following colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), advocating for increased vigilance during procedures near the splenic flexure.

PATIENT CONCERNS

We present a case report of a 66-year-old woman who experienced persistent abdominal pain after undergoing EMR for an adenomatous lesion in the distal transverse colon.

DIAGNOSES

The diagnosis of splenic rupture was established following her symptoms and clinical evaluation.

INTERVENTIONS

Active conservative management was implemented after diagnosis.

OUTCOMES

The patient's recovery underscores the importance of prompt diagnosis and careful monitoring.

LESSONS

Although splenic rupture after EMR is extremely rare, it is a serious and potentially life-threatening complication. When obtaining informed consent, it is important to emphasize not only common complications like bleeding and perforation but also the risk of splenic injury. Physicians should select appropriate instruments and carefully adjust the angle and force of needle insertion, avoiding excessively long needles and vertical insertion. The procedure should be performed gently to minimize the risk of splenic rupture. For lesions near the splenic flexure, if postoperative abdominal pain occurs, regardless of left shoulder pain, splenic rupture should be considered, and a computed tomography scan promptly performed. Postoperatively, physicians should closely monitor vital signs and repeatedly check blood counts and coagulation parameters. Treatment should be tailored to the splenic injury's extent and the patient's overall condition, with immediate surgery if necessary. High-risk patients should be regularly followed up and instructed to monitor for physical changes. Endoscopists should remain vigilant during procedures, fully understanding potential complications, and closely monitoring the patient's condition postoperatively. This vigilance is key to preventing severe complications and ensuring optimal outcomes.

Splenic injuries secondary to colonoscopy: Rare but serious complication

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a safe and routine diagnostic and therapeutic procedure for evaluation of large bowel diseases. Most common procedure related complications include bleeding and perforation but rarely a splenic Injury.

AIM

To investigate the reason for colonoscopy, presentation of patient with spleen injury, types of injury, diagnosis, management and outcomes of patients

METHODS

A structured search on four databases was done and 45 articles with 68 patients were selected. The reason for colonoscopy, presentation of patient with spleen injury, types of injury, diagnosis, management and outcomes of patients were identified and analyzed using SPSS.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 62.7 years with 64% females. Twenty two percent had a complete splenic rupture with colonoscopy while 63% had subcapsular hematoma, spleen laceration and spleen avulsion. The most common reason for colonoscopy was screening (46%) followed by diagnostic colonoscopy (28%). Eighty seven percent of patients presented with abdominal pain. Patients with spleen rupture mostly required splenectomy (47%), while minor spleen hematomas and lacerations were managed conservatively (38%). Six percent of the patients were managed with proximal splenic artery splenic embolization and 4% were managed with laparoscopic repair. The overall mortality was 10% while 77% had complete recovery. The reason of colonoscopy against presentation specifically, abdominal pain showed no statistical significance P = 0.69. The indication of colonoscopy had no significant impact on incidence of splenic injury (P = 0.89). Majority of the patients (47%) were managed with splenectomy while the rest were managed conservatively (P = 0.04). This association was moderately strong at a cramer’s V test (0.34). The Fisher exact test showed a higher mortality with spleen rupture (P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Spleen rupture due to colonoscopy is a significant concern and is associated with high mortality. The management of the patients can be individualized based on clinical presentation.

Abdominal Physical Signs of Inspection and Medical Eponyms

BACKGROUND

An eponym in clinical medicine is an honorific term ascribed to a person(s) who may have initially discovered or described a device, procedure, anatomical part, treatment, disease, symptom, syndrome, or sign found on physical examination. Signs, although often lacking sufficient sensitivity and specificity, assist in some cases to differentiate and diagnose disease. With the advent of advanced technological tools in radiological imaging and diagnostic testing, the importance of inspection, the initial steps taught during the physical examination, is often overlooked or given only cursory attention. Nevertheless, in the era of evidence-based and cost-effective medicine, it becomes compelling, and we contend that a meticulously performed history and physical examination, applying the basic tenets of inspection, remains paramount prior to obtaining appropriate diagnostic tests.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Medline, online Internet word searches and bibliographies from source text and textbooks. PubMed was searched using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) of the name of the eponyms and text words associated with the sign.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the historical aspect, clinical application, and performance of medical eponymous signs of inspection found on physical examination during the 18th to 20th centuries.

Emergency splenectomy postelective colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for investigation of colorectal carcinoma and inflammatory bowel disease. Splenic injury is a rare but potentially fatal complication of colonoscopy. The present case study outlines the early clinical presentation and rapid deterioration of a patient with a splenic injury after an elective colonoscopy. A 70-year-old female underwent a colonoscopy for investigation of altered bowel habit. The procedure was documented as difficult due to the presence of 'stiff loopy colon'. In recovery, patient's condition deteriorated and she was moved to the ward for further assessment. She gradually became haemodynamically unstable and displayed signs of peritoneal irritation. Initial attempts of fluid resuscitation failed to improve patient's clinical condition. Further testing revealed a significant drop in haemoglobin and CT confirmed the diagnosis of a splenic rupture. She underwent an emergency splenectomy that evening. Postoperatively she was managed in the high dependency unit.