Colonoscopic Perforations

Risk factors and management of iatrogenic colorectal perforation in diagnostic colonoscopy: a single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Diagnostic colonoscopy plays a central role in colorectal cancer screening programs. We analyzed the risk factors for perforation during diagnostic colonoscopy and discussed the treatment outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of risk factors and treatment outcomes of perforation during 74,426 diagnostic colonoscopies between 2013 and 2018 in a tertiary hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 19 perforations were identified after 74,426 diagnostic colonoscopies or sigmoidoscopies, resulting in a standardized incidence rate of 0.025% or 2.5 per 10,000 colonoscopies. The majority (15 out of 19, 79%) were found at the sigmoid colon and recto-sigmoid junction. Perforation occurred mostly in less than 1000 cases of colonoscopy (16 out of 19, 84%). In particular, the incidence of perforation was higher in more than 200 cases undergoing slightly advanced colonoscopy rather than beginners who had just learned colonoscopy. Old age (≥ 70 years), inpatient setting, low body mass index (BMI), and sedation status were significantly associated with increased risk of perforation. Nine (47%) of the patients underwent operative treatment and ten (53%) were managed non-operatively. Patients who underwent surgery were often diagnosed with delayed or concomitant abdominal pain. Perforations of rectum tended to be successfully treated with endoscopic clipping.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional precautions are required to prevent perforation in elderly patients, hospital settings, low BMI, sedated patients, or by a doctor with slight familiarity with endoscopies (but still insufficient experience). Endoscopic treatment should be actively considered if diagnosis is prompt, abdominal pain absent, and especially the rectal perforation is present.

Constipation and colonoscopy

Constipation is a significant sociomedical problem, which can be caused by various reasons. In the diagnostic approach to patients with constipation, the following data are usually sufficient: History, complete physical examination (including rectal examination), and additional diagnostic tests. A colonoscopy is not a necessary diagnostic method for all patients with constipation. However, if patients have alarm symptoms/signs, that suggest an organic reason for constipation, a colonoscopy is necessary. The most important alarm symptoms/signs are age > 50 years, gastrointestinal bleeding, new-onset constipation, a palpable mass in the abdomen and rectum, weight loss, anemia, inflammatory bowel disease, and family history positive for colorectal cancer. Most endoscopists do not like to deal with patients with constipation. There are two reasons for this, namely the difficulty of endoscopy and the adequacy of preparation. Both are adversely affected by constipation. To improve the quality of colonoscopy in these patients, good examination techniques and often more extensive preparation are necessary. Good colonoscopy technique implies adequate psychological preparation of the patient, careful insertion of the endoscope with minimal insufflation, and early detection and resolution of loops. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy often requires prolonged preparation and sometimes the addition of other laxatives.

Effects of sigmoidoscopy screening (including colonoscopy) on colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Background

This study aimed to investigate the role of endoscopy screening in colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

Up to January 2023, databases were searched for studies related to sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening. The incidence of CRC, and/or CRC mortality were the main observation outcomes.

Results

A total of 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2017 to 2022 were included. Among them, four studies used sigmoidoscopy screening and one study involved colonoscopy screening. Statistical results showed that the incidence (RR: 0.78, p < 0.001) and mortality (RR: 0.75, p < 0.001) of CRC were significantly lower in the screening group than in the control group. Further, a subgroup analysis of CRC site indicated that the incidence and mortality of CRC in the screening group were significantly lower than those in the non-screened group, regardless of distal CRC (Incidence: RR: 0.66, p < 0.001; Mortality: RR: 0.62, p < 0.001) or proximal CRC (Incidence: RR: 0.94, p = 0.038; Mortality: RR: 0.89, p = 0.038). In terms of gender, compared with the non-screening group, both males (Incidence: RR: 0.73, p < 0.001; Mortality: RR: 0.68, p < 0.001) and females (Incidence: RR: 0.85, p < 0.001; Mortality: RR: 0.85, p = 0.017), the screening group had a significant decrease in the incidence and mortality of CRC.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that sigmoidoscopy screening (including colonoscopy) could effectively reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC.

Colon mucosal injury caused by water jet malfunction during a screening colonoscopy: A case report

BACKGROUND

Screening colonoscopies are routinely performed and have low occurrences of adverse events such as perforation, bleeding, infection, and post-polypectomy syndrome. True device related adverse events are rarely reported in the literature.

CASE SUMMARY

We report a case of a 51-year-old patient without past medical history who presented for her first screening colonoscopy. The patient was thought to have friable mucosa in the cecum and oozed upon water irrigation during screening colonoscopy. It was later identified that the colonoscope used during the index procedure had malfunctioned and produced a pin-point water jet which damaged the colon mucosa of cecum. The maintenance service identified a piece of rubber fragment lodged in the instrument component at the tip of the scope, resulting in high pressure water jet. Repeat colonoscopy with a functioning colonoscope confirmed normal colon mucosa without friability.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of mucosa injury from a colonoscope water jet malfunction. Endoscopists should recognize the potential for endoscopic malfunction.

The incidence of iatrogenic deaths in the Finnish cause-of-death statistics; a retrospective study

PURPOSE

An adverse event in health care leading to death is a significant event when assessing patient safety. This study was designed in order to assess, how many iatrogenic deaths are registered in Finland annually, and what type of treatment they are mostly related to.

METHODS

Material was collected using cause of death-statistics that includes "manner of death"-classification in Finland in 2014-2015.

RESULTS

There were 350 cases that met the criteria of the study. In a majority of the cases (264, 75%), a medico-legal autopsy was performed. This represents only 1.4% of all medicolegal autopsies during the study period in Finland. The cases were most often related to medication (30%) or known high-risk procedures such as gastrointestinal surgery (23%) and cardiothoracic surgery (11%). Only 12% of the cases had no prior significant medical history. Patient characteristics were somewhat different among the surgical disciplines, probably reflecting treatment practices.

CONCLUSION

Deaths that are classified as iatrogenic are mostly related to known high-risk surgery or medication. Further studies are needed to assess the true incidence of malpractice among this material.

Comparison of Preoperative CT Colonography and Colonoscopy for Esophageal Reconstruction with Colonic Interposition

Colonic evaluation is an essential step before proceeding with esophagectomy to reconstruct by colonic interposition. Colonoscopy is the standard practice for colorectal cancer screening, but it has a chance of failing cecal intubation and carries a risk of horrific adverse events by colonic perforation. CT colonography is a less invasive alternative method reported as useful for colonoscopic screening in cases of average risk of colorectal cancer. This study set out to report our clinical experience and to evaluate CT colonography in the preoperative process for colonic interposition of esophagectomy patients. Data for esophagectomy with colonic interposition patients were retrospectively analyzed and compared the colonoscopy group with the CT colonography group. During eight years, 31 patients, 12 patients in the colonoscopy group and 19 patients in the CT colonography group, included in this study. In both groups, the patient demographic data, procedures, and outcomes were not different. After colonic interposition, endoscopy was performed, and no lesions of conduits were detected. CT colonography is a minimally invasive and reliable option for colonic evaluation method for the patient of average colorectal cancer risk who has undergone esophagectomy with colonic interposition.

Colon capsule endoscopy

There are multiple indications for luminal imaging of the colon. From assessment of known disease, to diagnosing new pathology; intra-luminal visualisation is the mainstay of gastrointestinal diagnosis. Colonoscopy and radiological imaging are currently the most frequently deployed diagnostic methods. However, both have an associated risk profile, have significant resource pressures and are not universally tolerated. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers an adjunct to these diagnostic options. In this narrative review the utility of CCE is described. Its current uses, potential benefits and future developments are also discussed.

Postcolonoscopy Appendicitis: A Review of 57 Cases

The purpose of this study is to review the cases of postcolonoscopy appendicitis (PCA) reported in the literature. A comprehensive search using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar identified 57 cases. The median age at presentations of PCA was 55 years. PCAs typically occurred during the first 24 hours after colonoscopy, and the majority developed after diagnostic colonoscopy. Clinical presentations were similar to those with common acute appendicitis, though with a high perforation rate. Most patients were correctly diagnosed using ultrasound or computed tomography scan. Treatment included open appendicectomy, laparoscopic appendicectomy or cecotomy, radiologic drainage of the abscess, nonoperative treatment with antibiotics. In addition to barotrauma, fecalith impaction into the appendiceal lumen, direct trauma to the appendiceal orifice, and underlying ulcerative colitis, a pre-existing subclinical disease of the appendix seems to play an important role in the pathogenesis. For PCA, timely diagnosis and management are crucial to attain a satisfactory outcome.

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.