Endoscopic management of colonoscopic perforations (with videos)

Risk Prediction of Post-Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Coagulation Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been popular worldwide to treat laterally spreading tumors and large polyps. Post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) is more common than the two major ESD-related complications, perforation, and bleeding. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of PECS, identify the risk factors for PECS, and create a risk prediction model for PECS.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed a total of 986 patients who underwent colorectal ESD. Logistic regression models were used to assess risk factors with PECS. Each risk factor was scored, and the 3-step risk stratification index of prediction model was assessed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of PECS was 21.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.9-24.1%). The risk factors of PECS in the multivariate logistic regression were tumor size (+1 cm: odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.16-7.09), cecal lesion (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), procedure time (+30 min: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.39), and ESD with snaring (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.95). Applying a simplified weighted scoring system based on adjusted OR increments of 1, the risk of PECS was 12.3% (95% CI, 0.3-16.0%) for the low-risk group (score ≤4) and was 36.0% (95% CI = 29.4-43.2%) for the high-risk group (score ≥8). Overall discrimination (C-statistic = 0.629; 95% CI = 0.585-0.672) and calibration (p = 0.993) of the model were moderate to good.

CONCLUSION

PECS occurs frequently, and the prediction model can be helpful for effective treatment and prevention of PECS.

Impact of prophylactic wound closure in colorectal ESD on postoperative wound complications: A meta-analysis

Endoscopic submucosa dissection (ESD) has been applied extensively in the treatment of large intestine tumours due to its high total excision ratio. Nevertheless, there is a high incidence of adverse reactions in colon ESD, and the efficacy of prophylactic ESD following ESD in prevention of postoperative haemorrhage is still disputed. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylaxis of wound closure in large intestine ESD after operation. For eligibility, we looked through three databases: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. Heterogenity was measured by means of a chi-square method of Q-statistic and an I2 test. Fixed or random effects models were used for data processing. Based on the retrieval policy, we found a total of 1286 papers, and then we collected nine papers to extract the data. Regarding postoperative haemorrhage, there was a significant reduction in the risk of wound haemorrhage in the wound closure group than in the control group (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.44 p < 0.0001). No statistical significance was found in the incidence of perforation in the wound closure and the control group (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.19-1.03 p = 0.06). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of postoperation fever among those in the wound closure group than in the control group (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.93 p = 0.04). Preventive endoscopic closure decreased the rate of ESD in colon disease, but did not significantly decrease the rate of postoperation perforation and postoperative fever. Future research will be required to clarify the risk factors and classify high-risk individuals in order to formulate a cost-effective prevention strategy.

Management of complications related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), colonoscopic endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) has the advantages of higher en bloc resection rates and lower recurrence rates of colorectal neoplasms. Therefore, C-ESD is considered an effective treatment method for laterally spread tumors and early colorectal cancer. However, C-ESD is technically more difficult and requires a longer procedure time than EMR. In addition to therapeutic efficacy and procedural difficulty, safety concerns should always be considered when performing C-ESD in clinical practice. Bleeding and perforation are the main adverse events associated with C-ESD and can occur during C-ESD or after the completion of the procedure. Most bleeding associated with C-ESD can be managed endoscopically, even if it occurs during or after the procedure. More recently, most perforations identified during C-ESD can also be managed endoscopically, unless the mural defect is too large to be sutured with endoscopic devices or the patient is hemodynamically unstable. Delayed perforations are quite rare, but they require surgical treatment more frequently than endoscopically identified intraprocedural perforations or radiologically identified immediate postprocedural perforations. Post-ESD coagulation syndrome is a relatively underestimated adverse event, which can mimic localized peritonitis from perforation. Here, we classify and characterize the complications associated with C-ESD and recommend management options for them.

Suturing techniques with endoscopic clips and special devices after endoscopic resection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is an established method for complete resection of large and early gastrointestinal tumors. However, methods to reduce bleeding, perforation, and other adverse events after endoscopic resection (ER) have not yet been defined. Mucosal defect closure is often performed endoscopically with a clip. Recently, reopenable clips and large-teeth clips have also been developed. The over-the-scope clip enables complete defect closure by withdrawing the endoscope once and attaching the clip. Other methods involve attaching the clip-line or a ring with an anchor to appose the edges of the mucosal defect, followed by the use of an additional clip for defect closure. Since clips are limited by their grasping force and size, other methods, such as endoloop closure, endoscopic ligation with O-ring closure, and the reopenable clip over-the-line method, have been developed. In recent years, techniques often utilized for full-thickness ER of submucosal tumors have been widely used in full-thickness defect closure. Specialized devices and techniques for defect closure have also been developed, including the curved needle and line, stitches, and an endoscopic tack and suture device. These clips and suture devices are applied for defect closure in emergency endoscopy, accidental perforations, and acute and chronic fistulas. Although endoscopic defect closure with clips has a high success rate, endoscopists need to simplify and promote endoscopic closure techniques to prevent adverse events after ER.

Characteristics and endoscopic treatment of interventional and non-interventional iatrogenic colorectal perforations in centers with high endoscopic expertise: a retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic colorectal perforation is a rare event with a relevant mortality and the need for surgical therapy in around ¾ of cases.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicentric cohort study iatrogenic colorectal perforations from 2004 to 2021 were analyzed. Primary outcome parameters were incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment. Comparative analysis of interventional and non-interventional perforations was performed and predictors for clinical success of endoscopic therapy were identified.

RESULTS

From 103,570 colonoscopies 213 (0.2%) iatrogenic perforations were identified. 68.4% were interventional (80 during polypectomy/EMR, 54 during ESD and 11 for other reasons) and 31.6% non-interventional perforations (39 by the tip, 19 by the shaft, 7 by inversion, two by biopsy and one by distension). Incidence of 1st line endoscopic therapy was 61.0% and clinical success 81.5%. Other non-surgical therapies were conducted in 8.9% with clinical success in 94.7% of cases. In interventional perforations both incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic therapy were significantly higher compared to non-interventional perforations [71.7% vs. 38.2% (p < 0.01) resp. 86.5% vs. 61.5% (p < 0.01)]. Mortality was 2.3% and significantly lower in the group of interventional perforations (0.7% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.037). Multivariable analysis revealed perforation size < 5 mm as only independent predictor for clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment [OR 14.85 (1.57-140.69), p = 0.019].

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic therapy is treatment of choice in the majority of iatrogenic colorectal perforations. In case of interventional perforations it is highly effective but only a minority of non-interventional perforations are good candidates for endoscopic treatment.

Quality improvement project on the development of a management algorithm for iatrogenic perforations and the long-term impact on physician knowledge

Background and study aims  Acute iatrogenic endoscopic perforations (AIEPs) can have high morbidity and mortality, especially colonic perforations. Knowledge of diagnosis and AIEP management can improve patient care. The aims of this study were to: develop an evidence-based AIEP management algorithm; study its short-term and long-term impact on physician knowledge; and evaluate physician knowledge using hypothetical clinical scenarios. Methods  An institutional AIEP management algorithm was created using the most current recommendations from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Input from advanced endoscopists, nurses, and anesthesiologists was also obtained. We assessed change in physician knowledge using a 10-item questionnaire before (pretest), a standardized one-page AIEP educational material and algorithm immediately after (post-test) to test short-term retention, and 6 months later (6-month reassessment) to test long-term retention. With the 6-month reassessment, two clinical scenarios based on real AIEP were presented to evaluate application of knowledge. Results  Twenty-eight subjects (8 gastroenterology fellows and 20 practicing gastroenterologists) participated in the assessments. Pretest and immediate post-test accuracies were 75 % and 95 % ( P  < 0.01), respectively. Six-month reassessment accuracies were 83.6 %, significantly worse compared to post-test accuracies ( P  < 0.05), but significantly improved compared to pretest accuracies ( P  < 0.05). Accuracies for clinical scenarios #1 and #2 were 67.5 % and 60.3 %, respectively. Fellows had similar accuracies when compared to practicing gastroenterologists. Conclusions  Using standardized methodology and a multidisciplinary approach, an AIEP management algorithm was created to improve patient care and alleviate physician and staff stress. In addition, we showed that a one-page educational document on perforations can significantly improve short-term and long-term physician knowledge, although periodic reeducation is needed.

Principles, Preparation, Indications, Precaution, and Damage Control of Endoscopic Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Interventional inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or endoscopic therapy for IBD or IBD surgery-associated complications has emerged as a main treatment modality bridging medical and surgical treatment. It delivers therapy more definitive than medical therapy and less invasive than surgical treatment. The main applications of interventional IBD are strictures, fistulas, abscesses, bleeding, foreign bodies, postoperative complications, and colitis-associated neoplasia. The major endoscopic treatment modalities are balloon dilation, stricturotomy, strictureplasty, fistulotomy, sinusotomy, septectomy, banding ligation, incision and drainage, polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Iatrogenic colon perforation during colonoscopy, diagnosis/treatment, and follow-up processes: A single-center experience

Objectives

latrogenic colon perforation (ICP) is one of the most feared complications of colonoscopy and causes unwanted morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aimed to discuss the characteristics of the cases of ICP we encountered in our endoscopy clinic, its etiology, our treatment approaches, and results in the light of the current literature.

Material and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated the cases of ICP among 9.709 lower gastrointestinal system endoscopy procedures (colonoscopy + rectosigmoidoscopy) performed for diagnostic purposes in our endoscopy clinic during 2002-2020.

Results

A total of seven cases of ICP were detected. The diagnosis was made during the procedure in six patients and after eight hours in one patient, and their treatment was performed urgently. Whereas surgical procedures were performed in all patients, the type of the procedure varied; laparoscopic primary repair was performed in two patients and laparotomy in five patients. In the patients who underwent laparotomy, primary repair was performed in three patients, partial colon resection and end-to-end anastomosis in one patient, and loop colostomy in one patient. The patients were hospitalized for an average of 7.14 days. The patients who did not develop complications in the postoperative follow-up were discharged with full recovery.

Conclusion

Prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment of ICP is crucial to prevent morbidity and mortality.

Patient Selection, Risks, and Long-Term Outcomes Associated with Colorectal Polyp Resection

The 2 most significant complications of colonoscopy with polypectomy are bleeding and perforation. Although the incidence rates are generally low (<1%), these can be avoided by recognizing pertinent risk factors, which can be patient, polyp, and technique/device related. Endoscopists should be equipped to manage bleeding and perforation. Currently available devices and techniques to achieve hemostasis and manage colon perforations are reviewed.

Fever and electrocoagulation syndrome after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection for patients with immunosuppressants and steroids

Objectives

Transient fever and electrocoagulation syndrome after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remain a challenge. The aim of this study was to assess the risk factors of post‐ESD fever and post‐ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS), focusing on the involvement of immunosuppressive drugs and steroids (IM).

Methods

This retrospective analysis included 510 patients who underwent colorectal ESD at Okayama University Hospital from 2015 to 2020. The incidence rate, clinical outcome, and factors associated with post‐ESD fever and PECS were investigated.

Results

Post‐ESD fever and PECS occurred in 63 patients (12.4%) and 43 patients (8.4%), respectively. In multivariate analysis, the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status ≥3, the use of immunosuppressants or prednisolone ≥5mg (IM group), and injury to muscle layer/perforation were significantly associated with post‐ESD fever. In PECS, IM group, tumors located on the right side, treatment time ≥60 min, injury to the muscle layer, and multiple lesions were independent risk factors. Both post‐ESD fever and PECS improved conservatively in the IM group, and no serious complication was observed.

Conclusions

The use of IM was a risk factor for both post‐ESD fever and PECS. However, there were no serious complications in colorectal ESD for patients taking IM.

Outcomes of Deep Mural Injury After Endoscopic Resection: An International Cohort of 3717 Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although perforation is the most feared adverse event associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), limited data exists concerning its management. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of intra-procedural deep mural injury (DMI) in an international multi-center observational cohort of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent EMR for a LNPCP ≥20 mm were evaluated. Significant DMI (S-DMI) was defined as Sydney DMI Classification type III (muscularis propria injury, target sign) or type IV/V (perforation without or with contamination, respectively). The primary outcome was successful S-DMI defect closure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (removal of all visible polypoid tissue during index EMR), surgical referral and recurrence at first surveillance colonscopy (SC1).

RESULTS

Between July 2008 to May 2020, 3717 LNPCPs underwent EMR. Median lesion size was 35mm (interquartile range (IQR) 25 to 45mm). Significant DMI was identified in 101 cases (2.7%), with successful defect closure in 98 (97.0%) using a median of 4 through-the-scope clips (TTSCs; IQR 3 to 6 TTSCs). Three (3.0%) patients underwent S-DMI-related urgent surgery. Technical success was achieved in 94 (93.1%) patients, with 46 (45.5%) admitted to hospital (median duration 1 day; IQR 1 to 2 days). Comparing LNPCPs with and without S-DMI, no differences in technical success (94 (93.1%) vs 3316 (91.7%); P = .62) or SC1 recurrence (12 (20.0%) vs 363 (13.6%); P = .15) were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant DMI is readily managed endoscopically and does not appear to affect technical success or recurrence.

Design Optimization of a Novel Multifiring Clip Applicator System for Endoscopic Closure of Large Perforations

Endoscopic closure has become the first choice for closing iatrogenic perforations. Previously, we reported a self-developed endoscopic multifiring clip applicator (EMFCA) system. In this paper, a new EMFCA system for endoscopic closure of large perforations with a redesigned clip, the less traumatic grasper, and a highly efficient driving system was presented, and its efficacy was evaluated. The behaviors of the new clip and grasper were verified through finite element analysis (FEA). The capability of pushing transmission for the EMFCA system was identified by the proposed model and the validation experiment. Ex-vivo studies were conducted on porcine stomachs to compare the outcomes of the closures. The FEA results showed that the deformation of the clip was safe and smoother, with a maximum stress of 640.0 MPa. The less traumatic grasper could increase the grasping force and avoid trauma by exerting uniform stress along the axis. The capability of pushing transmission was enhanced by the double-nested tendon-sheath actuation system with an efficiency of 0.45–0.48. The mechanical strength, the leakage pressure, and the operating time for the closures with the new EMFCA system and the previous EMFCA system were 6.1 N ± 0.8 N, 37.1 mmHg ± 6.8 mmHg, 7.3 min ± 0.4 min and 5.1 N ± 1.0 N, 27.4 mmHg ± 6.4 mmHg, 11.4 min ±0.8 min, respectively. The new EMFCA system can realize a superior, reliable, and high-efficiency endoscopic closure of large perforations.

Endoscopic Treatment of Iatrogenic Perforation of Sigmoid Diverticulum: A Case Report of Multidisciplinary Management

Iatrogenic perforations are severe complications of gastrointestinal endoscopy; therefore, their management should be adequately planned. A 77-year-old man with a history of diverticulosis underwent a colonoscopy for anemia. During the procedure, an iatrogenic perforation occurred suddenly in the sigmoid colon, near a severe angle among the numerous diverticula. Through-the- scope clips were immediately applied to treat it and close mucosal edges. Laboratory tests showed increased inflammation and infection, and although there were no complaints of abdominal pain, the patient had an extremely distended abdomen. A multidisciplinary board began management based on a conservative approach. Pneumoperitoneum was treated with computed tomography-assisted drainage. After 72 hours, his intestinal canalization and laboratory tests were normal. Though this adverse event is rare, a multidisciplinary board should be promptly gathered upon occurrence, even if the patient appears clinically stable, to consider a conservative approach and avoid surgical treatment.

Paradigm shift in management of acute iatrogenic colonic perforations: 24-year retrospective comprehensive study

Background and study aims  Through advanced endoscopic clipping techniques, endoscopic treatment of both diagnostic and therapeutic acute iatrogenic colonic perforations has been shown effective. The main purpose of this study was to compare the management of acute iatrogenic perforations (AIPs) of the colon before and after the introduction of advanced clipping techniques. Methods  We conducted a retrospective study from July 1996 to February 2020. The period was divided into two sub periods, Period 1: from July 1996 to December 2012 and Period 2: from January 2013 to March 2020. All AIPs occurring during a colonoscopy and detected during or immediately (< 4 hours) after the procedure, were included in the study. Results  The total number of colonoscopies performed at our hospital was 33055 and 36831 during Periods 1 and 2 respectively. Fifteen perforations were observed in Period 1 and 11 in Period 2. The rate of surgery was 93.3 % % (14/15) in Period 1 and 27.2 % (3 /11) in Period 2 ( P  < 0.01). The mean hospital stay in Period 1 was 6.9 days and 4 in Period 2 ( P  < 0.01). Conclusions  Data from this historical cohort have clearly shown a decrease in the surgery rate and the length of hospitalization of AIPs in Period 2 compared to Period 1.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020

1:  ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3:  ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Practical guidelines on endoscopic treatment for Crohn's disease strictures: a consensus statement from the Global Interventional Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group

Stricture formation is a common complication of Crohn's disease, resulting from the disease process, surgery, or drugs. Endoscopic balloon dilation has an important role in the management of strictures, with emerging techniques, such as endoscopic electroincision and stenting, showing promising results. The underlying disease process, altered bowel anatomy from disease or surgery, and concurrent use of immunosuppressive drugs can make endoscopic procedures more challenging. There is an urgent need for the standardisation of endoscopic procedures and peri-procedural management strategies. On the basis of an extensive literature review and the clinical experience of the consensus group, which consisted of representatives from the Interventional Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group, we propose detailed guidance on all aspects of the principles and techniques for endoscopic procedures in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease-associated strictures.

Optimized Training in the Use of Endoscopic Closure Devices

Successful closure of gastrointestinal defects is one of the most important goals for therapeutic endoscopy. Historically, surgical repair was the mainstay of treatment for any gastrointestinal defect; however, surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal defects has developed rapidly in recent years and has become more effective, reducing the morbidity and mortality rates, and avoiding surgical interventions. Appropriate use of endoscopic techniques requires extensive knowledge of the devices and their advantages and limitations during practical applications.

Clinical outcomes of iatrogenic upper gastrointestinal endoscopic perforation: a 10-year study

Background

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic examination is a relatively safe procedure; however, all endoscopic procedures are invasive and are associated with a risk of iatrogenic perforation. To evaluate clinical outcomes of iatrogenic upper gastrointestinal endoscopic perforation. Factors associated with surgical management or mortality were analyzed.

Methods

Between November 2008 and November 2018, the medical records of 149,792 upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures were evaluated. The mechanisms of perforations were categorized as electrocoagulation-induced or blunt trauma-induced injuries. The incidence and clinical outcomes of iatrogenic perforations based on the types of procedures performed were evaluated.

Results

Iatrogenic endoscopic perforations occurred in 28 cases (0.019%). Iatrogenic perforation-related mortality occurred in 3 patients. The iatrogenic perforation rate based on the types of procedures performed was as follows: diagnostic endoscopy = 0.002%, duodenal endoscopic mucosal resection = 0.9%, esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection = 10.7%, gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection = 0.2%, endoscopic self-expandable metal stent insertion for malignant esophageal obstruction = 0.1%, duodenoscope-induced injury = 0.02%, endoscopic sphincterotomy = 0.08%, and ampullectomy = 6.8%. All electrocoagulation-induced perforations (n = 21) were managed successfully (15 cases of endoscopic closure, 5 cases treated conservatively, and 1 case treated surgically). Three patients died among those with blunt trauma-induced perforations (n = 7). The factors associated with surgical management or mortality were old age, poor performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score ≥ 1), advanced malignancy, and blunt trauma.

Conclusions

Most cases of electrocoagulation-induced iatrogenic perforations can be treated using endoscopic clips. If endoscopic closure fails for blunt trauma-induced perforations, prompt surgical management is mandatory.

How to Perform Wide-Field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Follow-up Examinations

Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the primary management option for noninvasive laterally spreading colorectal lesions. It has been proved to be safe, highly effective, efficient, and cost-effective. Careful lesion interrogation before resection is essential because it provides essential information, including the risk of submucosal invasive disease. Adjuvant thermal ablation to the post-EMR defect margin has recently been shown to substantially reduce adenoma recurrence. Adenoma recurrence is predictable using the Sydney EMR Recurrence Tool. Adenoma recurrence can be accurately detected using standardized imaging of the post-EMR scar, and can be effectively treated.

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.

Over-the-scope clip system: A review of 1517 cases over 9 years

Rescue therapy for gastrointestinal (GI) refractory bleeding, perforation, and fistula has traditionally required surgical interventions owing to the limited performance of conventional endoscopic instruments and techniques. An innovative clipping system, the over-the-scope clip (OTSC), may play an important role in rescue therapy. This innovative device is proposed as the final option in endoscopic treatment. The device presents several advantages including having a powerful sewing force for closure of GI defects using a simple mechanism and also having an innovative feature, whereby a large defect and fistula can be sealed using accessory forceps. Consequently, it is able to provide outstanding clinical effects for rescue therapy. This review clarifies the current status and limitations of OTSC according to different indications of GI refractory disease, including refractory bleeding, perforation, fistula, and anastomotic dehiscence. An extensive literature search identified studies reported 10 or more cases in which the OTSC system was applied. A total of 1517 cases described in 30 articles between 2010 and 2018 were retrieved. The clinical success rates and complications were calculated overall and for each indication. The average clinical success rate was 78% (n = 1517) overall, 85% for bleeding (n = 559), 85% (n = 351) for perforation, 52% (n = 388) for fistula, 66% (n = 97) for anastomotic dehiscence, and 95% (n = 122) for other conditions, respectively. The overall and severe OTSC-associated complications were 1.7% (n = 23) and 0.59% (n = 9), respectively. This review concludes that the OTSC system may serve as a safe and productive device for GI refractory diseases, albeit with limited success for fistula.

Endoscopic management of perforations, leaks and fistulas

The endoscopic management armamentarium of gastrointestinal disruptions including perforations, leaks, and fistulas has slowly but steadily broadened in recent years. Previously limited to surgical or conservative medical management, innovations in advanced endoscopic techniques like natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) have paved the path towards development of endoscopic closure techniques. Early recognition of a gastrointestinal defect is the most important independent variable in determining successful endoscopic closure and patient outcome. Some devices including through the scope clips and stents have been well studied for other indications and have produced encouraging results in closure of gastrointestinal perforations, leaks and fistulas. Over the scope clips, endoscopic sutures, vacuum therapy, glue, and cardiac device occluders are other alternative techniques that can be employed for successful endoscopic closure.

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Defects and Closure Techniques

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastrointestinal transmural defects are defined as total rupture of the gastrointestinal wall and can be divided into three main categories: perforations, leaks, and fistulas. Due to an increase in the number of therapeutic endoscopic procedures including full-thickness resections and the increase incidence of complications related to bariatric surgeries, there has been an increase in the number of transmural defects seen in clinical practice and the number of non-invasive endoscopic treatment procedures used to treat these defects.

RECENT FINDINGS

The variety of endoscopic approaches and devices, including closure techniques using clips, endoloop, and endoscopic sutures; covering techniques such as the cardiac septal occluder device, luminal stents, and tissue sealants; and drainage techniques including endoscopic vacuum therapy, pigtail, and septotomy with balloon dilation are transforming endoscopy as the first-line approach for therapy of these conditions. In this review, we describe the various transmural defects and the endoscopic techniques and devices used in their closure.

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.

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)

Colonoscopy has the benefit of detecting and treating precancerous adenomatous polyps and thus reduces mortality associated with CRC. Screening colonoscopy is the keystone for prevention of colorectal cancer. Over the last 20 years there has been increased in the management of large colorectal polyps from surgery to endoscopic removal techniques which is less invasive. Traditionally surgical resection was the treatment of choice for many years for larger polyps but colectomy poses significant morbidity of 14-46% and mortality of up to 7%. There are several advantages of endoscopic resection technique over surgery; it is less invasive, less expensive, has rapid recovery, and preserves the normal gut functions. In addition patient satisfaction and efficacy of EMR is higher with minor complications. Thus, this has facilitated the development of advanced resection technique for the treatment of large colorectal polyps called as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

The Efficacy of a Novel Tissue Grasper-Clips Technique for Large Perforations of the Sigmoid Colon in an Experimental Animal Model (Video)

BACKGROUND

The incidence of iatrogenic colonic perforation has been gradually increasing. In particular, sigmoid colon perforations are difficult to handle because of excess mobility.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the twin grasper-clips technique for large perforations of the sigmoid colon.

METHODS

This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, experimental study using ex vivo porcine colorectal specimens. Thirty standardized and variable artificial perforations were closed in the hemoclip group (hemoclips) and twin grasper group (hemoclips with a novel tissue grasper). We counted the number of hemoclips used per case to assess the cost and efficacy of the procedure.

RESULTS

In the hemoclip group (n = 15), among the 20-, 25-, and 30-mm defects, the mean number of clips (4.8 ± 0.8, 6.0 ± 1.6, and 8.4 ± 2.1, respectively, p = 0.011) and closure time (7.6 ± 0.5, 9.9 ± 3.3, and 13.9 ± 4.1 min, respectively, p = 0.020) differed significantly. In the twin grasper group (n = 15), among the 20-, 25-, and 30-mm defects, the mean number of clips (4.0 ± 1.0, 5.0 ± 0.7, and 5.4 ± 1.1, respectively, p = 0.101) and closure time (7.7 ± 0.6, 8.3 ± 1.9, and 9.1 ± 2.7 min, respectively, p = 0.506) did not differ significantly. In 30-mm defects, the mean number of hemoclips used per case and total closure time were significantly lower in the twin grasper group than the hemoclip group.

CONCLUSIONS

The twin grasper-clips technique seems to reduce the use of hemoclips and to result in more effective and rapid closure than does the conventional technique in large perforations of the ex vivo porcine sigmoid colon.

Optimizing Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps

OPINION STATEMENT

Polypectomy reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). The widespread adoption of CRC screening, more rigorous colonoscopy techniques, and advancements in endoscopic imaging have led to a greater awareness of complex polyps. Whereas surgery was once considered necessary for many large sessile or laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in the colorectum, the majority can now be removed endoscopically. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an established technique for treatment of colorectal LSLs. When performed by experts, EMR is highly effective and safe and can be completed in an outpatient or day-stay setting. Advancements in EMR effectiveness encompass a better understanding of the factors leading to post-EMR recurrence, protocols to recognize and treat it, and interventions that prevent recurrent or residual adenoma. New techniques for treating intra-procedural bleeding and a novel classification system to identify and inform proactive management of deep mural injury enhance the safety profile of EMR. However, each of these incremental advancements necessitates a meticulous and systematic approach that only committed and properly trained endoscopists can master. While alternative interventions such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offer potential advantages over EMR, the added procedural complexity, risks, and costs limit the relevance of ESD to a minority of lesions in the colorectum. This article reviews the expanding body of evidence supporting EMR as the first-line treatment of colorectal LSLs ≥20 mm.

Complications of endoscopic polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the colon

Endoscopic resection (ER), including endoscopic polypectomy (EP), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used to remove superficial neoplasms from the colon. Snare resection is used for EP and EMR, whereas endoscopic knives are used to perform dissection in the submucosal space in ESD. 80-90% colonic polyps are <10 millimetres (mm) and are effectively managed by conventional EP. Increasingly cold snare polypectomy is preferred. Large laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) and sessile polyps ≥20 mm are primarily removed by EMR. ESD may be used when superficial invasive disease is suspected and for some LSLs, particularly non-granular subtypes. Resection of colonic lesions by ER is associated with a small but definite incidence of significant complications, most commonly bleeding and perforation. This review discusses complications of ER with a particular focus on their prevention, early recognition and management. In many cases, complications from all three procedures share similar mechanisms and management principles and these are described at the start of each section, followed by a description of specific aspects for individual procedures.

Endoscopic management of colonic perforations: clips versus suturing closure (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Perforation during colonoscopy remains the most worrisome adverse event and usually requires urgent surgical rescue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of endoscopic closure of full-thickness colonic perforations.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients with endoscopically closed colonic perforations over the past 6 years (2009-2014). Colonic perforations were closed by using endoscopic clips or an endoscopic suturing device. Most patients were admitted for treatment with intravenous antibiotics and kept on bowel rest. If their clinical condition deteriorated, urgent surgery was performed. If patients remained stable, oral feeding was resumed, and patients were discharged with subsequent clinical and endoscopic follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients had iatrogenic colonic perforations closed with an endoscopic suturing device or endoscopic clips during the study period. Primary closure of a colonic perforation was performed with endoscopic clips in 5 patients and sutured with an endoscopic suturing device in 16 patients. All 5 patients after clip closure had worsening of abdominal pain and required laparoscopy (4 patients) or rescue colonoscopy with endoscopic suturing closure (1 patient). Two patients had abdominal pain after endoscopic suturing closure, but diagnostic laparoscopy confirmed complete and adequate endoscopic closure of the perforations. The other 15 patients did not require any rescue surgery or laparoscopy after endoscopic suturing. The main limitation of our study is its retrospective, single-center design and relatively small number of patients.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic suturing closure of colonic perforations is technically feasible, eliminates the need for rescue surgery, and appears more effective than closure with hemostatic endoscopic clips.

Outcome of EMR as an alternative to surgery in patients with complex colon polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with complex colon polyps were traditionally referred for surgery to avoid adverse events associated with endoscopic resection. Recent advances in endoscopic imaging as well as endoscopic hemostasis and clip closure allow for the use of EMR as an alternative to surgery for such lesions. To determine the outcome of treatment of complex colon polyps with EMR as an alternative to surgery, we conducted a retrospective observational study.

METHODS

Two hundred three patients with complex colon polyps were referred to an EMR center as an alternative to surgery. Patients underwent a protocol-driven EMR. The primary endpoint was the complete resection rate. Secondary endpoints were safety, residual adenoma rate, and incidence of missed synchronous polyps.

RESULTS

EMR was performed in 155 patients and was deferred in 48 patients who were referred to surgery. EMR specimens revealed benign polyps in 149 and cancer in 6 patients. EMR adverse events occurred in 7 patients, requiring hospitalization in 5 of them. None of the patients died as a result of their adverse events. Surveillance colonoscopy at 4 to 6 months after resection of a benign lesion in 137 patients revealed residual adenoma at the scar site in 6 patients and additional synchronous precancerous lesions in 117 patients that were not removed by the referring endoscopist. None underwent surgery for failure of EMR. The overall precancerous lesion burden was 2.83 per patient, the adenoma burden was 2.13 per patient, and the serrated polyp burden was .69 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR can be used instead of surgery for complex colon polyps in 75% of patients with few adverse events and few residual adenomas at resection sites. In addition, careful repeat examination of the entire colon for synchronous lesions overlooked by the referring endoscopist is required for most patients. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01827241.).

Novel endoscopic multi-firing-clip applicator for endoscopic closure of large colonic perforations

BACKGROUND

Existing endoclip closure devices have difficulty in closing large colonic perforation. We developed a novel endoscopic multi-firing-clip applicator (EMFCA) system to address these limitations, and report on its initial evaluation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The functionality and efficacy of the prototype EMFCA equipped with re-openable clamp and preloaded with four clips were assessed using standardized 1.5 cm incisions created in ex-vivo porcine colonic segments. Endoscopic closure of the lacerations with two, three and four clips (n = five for each group) was followed by measurement of the leakage pressure of the three groups. Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to validate the clip behavior and reliability during deployment.

RESULTS

All 15 perforations were sealed without leakage until fully distended. The leakage pressures of colonic lacerations sealed with two, three, and four clips were 26.1 ± 2.8 mmHg, 37.3 ± 7.3 mmHg and 42.3 ± 7.4 mmHg, respectively. The mean operation time to deploy one clip was 25.4 ± 5.2 seconds. On FEA, the deformation of the shape of the clip matched that of the intended design, with each clip sustaining a maximum stress of 648.5 MPa without any material failure during deployment.

CONCLUSIONS

These initial results confirm the efficacy of the EMFCA prototype system for endoscopic closure of colonic perforations.

Recent advances in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is an important and frequently performed procedure. It is effective in the prevention of colorectal cancer and is an important test in the investigation of many gastrointestinal symptoms. This review focuses on developments over the last 5 years that have led to changes in aspects of colonoscopy, including patient preparation, technical factors, therapeutic procedures, safety, and quality.

Bowel perforation after endoscopic submucosal dissection due to colon cancer and successful endoscopic treatment using an Ovesco clip

An 83-year-old woman under intravenous anaesthesia underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection due to early well-differentiated colon cancer with no deep invasion (pT1). Wide perforation in the deep site of excision of the descending colon was identified and an Ovesco clip placed to close the defect. The patient was discharged from the hospital on day 4 after the procedure, with no abdominal pain and no peritoneal signs of inflammation. Follow-up CT and colonoscopy were performed after 6 months, and no recurrence was observed.

The Endoscopic Treatment of Iatrogenic Gastrointestinal Perforation

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforation is a life-threatening complication that arises very rarely in routine endoscopic procedures, with an incidence of 0.03-0.8%. It is more likely in highly complex and invasive therapeutic interventions. In certain situations, endoscopic closure of the perforation and treatment with antibiotics can obviate the need for emergency surgical repair.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent articles retrieved by a selective literature search in PubMed and on a relevant position paper.

RESULTS

Existing clinical studies of treatment for iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforation are mainly retrospective and uncontrolled. No randomized and controlled trials have been performed to date. If the perforation is discovered soon after it arises, endoscopic treatment can be considered. Gastrointestinal perforations that are less than 30 mm in size can be closed with a clip. In the esophagus, expanding metal stents can be used as well. Clip application is successful in 80-100% of cases of gastrointestinal perforation, and the perforation remains permanently closed in 60-100% of cases. Reports on the endoscopic treatment of esophageal perforation show mixed results, with closure rates of roughly 90% and clinical success rates of roughly 80%. If endoscopic treatment is not possible, timely laparoscopic or open surgical repair is needed.

CONCLUSION

The endoscopic treatment of iatrogenic perforations is safe and reliable. Success depends on early detection, adequate endoscopic closure with properly mastered technique, and the early initiation of concomitant antibiotic treatment, which must be continued for a full course. Most patients who are treated in this way do not need emergency surgery.

Optimal Methods for the Management of Iatrogenic Colonoscopic Perforation

Background/Aims:

Colonoscopic perforations have been managed with exploratory laparotomy, and have resulted in some morbidity and mortality. Recently, laparoscopic surgery is commonly performed for this purpose. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of several management strategies for iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had been treated for colonoscopic perforation between January 2004 and April 2013 at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea.

Results:

A total of 41 patients with colonoscopic perforation were enrolled. Twenty patients underwent conservative management with a success rate of 90%. Surgical management was performed in 23 patients including two patients who were converted to surgical management after the failure of the initial conservative management. Among 14 patients who underwent surgery at 8 hours after the perforation, there was no considerable difference in adverse outcomes between the laparotomy group and the laparoscopic surgery group. The medical costs and claim rate were 1.45 and 1.87 times greater in the exploratory laparotomy group, respectively.

Conclusions:

Conservative management of colonoscopic perforation could be an option for patients without overt symptoms of peritonitis or with a small defect size. If surgical management is required, laparoscopic surgery may be considered as the initial procedure even with a delayed diagnosis.

Endoscopic "rescue" treatment for gastrointestinal perforations, anastomotic dehiscence and fistula

Luminal perforations and anastomotic leaks of the gastrointestinal tract are life-threatening events with high morbidity and mortality. Early recognition and prompt therapy is essential for a favourable outcome. Surgery has long been considered the "gold standard" approach for these conditions; however it is associated with high re-intervention morbidity and mortality. The recent development of endoscopic techniques and devices to manage perforations, leaks and fistulae has made non-surgical treatment an attractive and reasonable alternative approach. Although endoscopic therapy is widely accepted, comparative data of the different techniques are still lacking. In this review we describe, benefits and limitations of the current options in the management of patients with perforations and leaks, in order to improve outcomes.

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.

Unexpected Delayed Colon Perforation after the Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection with Snaring of a Laterally Spreading Tumor

Colonic perforation may occur as a complication of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy. The risk factors for perforation after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) include an inexperienced endoscopist, a large tumor size, and submucosal fibrosis. The mechanisms of perforation include unintended endoscopic resection/dissection and severe thermal injury. Here, we report a case of colon perforation that occurred after ESD with snaring of a laterally spreading tumor. The perforation was completely unexpected because there were no colorectal ESD-associated risk factors for perforation, deep dissection, or severe coagulation injury in our patient.

Coagulation syndrome: Delayed perforation after colorectal endoscopic treatments

Various procedure-related adverse events related to colonoscopic treatment have been reported. Previous studies on the complications of colonoscopic treatment have focused primarily on perforation or bleeding. Coagulation syndrome (CS), which is synonymous with transmural burn syndrome following endoscopic treatment, is another typical adverse event. CS is the result of electrocoagulation injury to the bowel wall that induces a transmural burn and localized peritonitis resulting in serosal inflammation. CS occurs after polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and even endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The occurrence of CS after polypectomy or EMR varies according previous reports; most report an occurrence rate around 1%. However, artificial ulcers after ESD are largely theoretical, and CS following ESD was reported in about 9% of cases, which is higher than that for CS after polypectomy or EMR. Most cases of post-polypectomy syndrome (PPS) have an excellent prognosis, and they are managed conservatively with medical therapy. PPS rarely develops into delayed perforation. Delayed perforation is a severe adverse event that often requires emergency surgery. Since few studies have reported on CS and delayed perforation associated with CS, we focused on CS after colonoscopic treatments in this review. Clinicians should consider delayed perforation in CS patients.

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.