Endoscopic clips for the closure of acute iatrogenic perforations: Where do we stand?

Surgical Management of Non-ulcer, Nonneoplastic Gastric Perforations

Gastric perforation is a core emergency disease treated by the general surgeon. The majority are caused by peptic ulcer disease and neoplasms; however, other etiologies, such as iatrogenic injury and gastric ischemia, are prevalent enough to merit separate attention. While the authors can extrapolate from our knowledge of the treatment of ulcer and neoplastic perforations when treating the lesser known causes, there are nuanced differences in how they approach it. The recognition and treatment of non-ulcer, nonneoplasm gastric perforation will be the focus of this article.

Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used technique to remove early neoplastic lesions. It was primarily used in the initial days to treat gastric lesions, but recently, the horizon of this endoscopic procedure has expanded, which has allowed us to manage other technically more complex locations, such as the colorectum.

AREAS COVERED

There has been an exponential growth regarding the wide range of devices available in the market for performing colorectal ESD. As a result, the aim of this review is to highlight the indication of this endoscopic technique, which device is best suited for which indication, as well as future trajectories in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Although some devices have proven to be more advantageous than others in this area, very often the choice is still subjective, which is commonly attributed to individual preferences and experience. However, an accurate knowledge of the available tools and their functioning, with their pros and cons, is fundamental for any endoscopist venturing into the field of third space endoscopy. In this way, one can choose which device best suits a particular situation, along with simultaneously having the wealth of knowledge related to therapeutic armamentarium at our disposal in the endoscopy suite.

Endoscopic suturing and clipping devices for defects in the GI tract

Gastrointestinal luminal defects, including perforations, leaks and fistulae, pose persistent obstacles in endoscopic therapeutic interventions. A variety of endoscopic approaches have been proposed, with through-the-scope clipping (TTSC), over-the-scope clipping (OTSC) and suturing representing the main techniques of tissue apposition. However, the heterogeneity in defect morphology, the technical particularities of different locations in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and the impact of various parameters on the final outcome, do not allow distinct conclusions and recommendations on the optimal approaches for defect closure, and, thus, current practice is based on endoscopists experience and local availability of devices. This review aims to collect the existing evidence on tissue apposition devices, in order to outline the role of every device on specific indications.

Zipper repair of 3 cm iatrogenic colonic perforation with dual-channel endoscope and twin grasper-assisted titanium clip

A 53-year-old man undergoing painless colonoscopy for long-term diarrhea. After colonoscopy withdrawing to the sigmoid colon, a local perforation was found, about 3 cm in size, oval in shape. We used a two-channel endoscope and grip to pull the edges of the intestinal wall on both sides of the perforation site to close together, and then repair the 3 cm oval perforation of the colon through multiple ordinary titanium clips. The patient had no obvious infection after surgery and recovered well after 1 month of follow-up. Preliminary experience has shown that using multiple titanium clips under dual-channel endoscope to zipper suture can effectively repair 3 cm iatrogenic colonic perforations.

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.

Manejo de perforaciones, fugas y fístulas del tracto gastrointestinal con clip sobre el endoscopio. Experiencia de un centro oncológico Latinoamericano

Introducción. Las fístulas derivadas de enfermedades neoplásicas del tracto digestivo, así como las fugas posteriores a procedimientos quirúrgicos, no son infrecuentes y ocasionan una morbilidad importante cuando se manejan de forma quirúrgica. También durante los procedimientos endoscópicos se pueden presentar perforaciones y, si se logra un manejo no operatorio, se alcanza una adecuada recuperación. El objetivo de este estudio fue describir las características clínicas y los resultados de los pacientes con perforaciones, fístulas y fugas del tracto gastrointestinal, manejadas endoscópicamente con clip sobre el endoscopio. Métodos. Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, de pacientes con perforación, fuga o fístula postoperatoria, llevados a endoscopía digestiva con colocación de clip sobre el endoscopio, en el Instituto Nacional de Cancerología en Bogotá, D.C., Colombia, entre enero de 2016 y abril de 2020. Resultados. Se incluyeron 21 pacientes, 52,4 % de ellos mujeres. La mediana de edad fue de 66 años y del diámetro del defecto fue de 9 mm. En el 95 % se logró éxito técnico. Hubo éxito clínico temprano en el 85,7 % de los casos. El 76,1 % de los pacientes permanecieron sin síntomas a los 3 meses de seguimiento. Conclusiones. El manejo de perforaciones, fugas y fístulas con clip sobre el endoscopio parece ser factible y seguro. En la mayoría de estos pacientes se logró la liberación del clip y la identificación endoscópica del cierre inmediatamente después del procedimiento; sin embargo, en el caso de las fístulas, no se alcanzó el éxito clínico tardío en todos los casos.

Endoscopic Management of Postoperative Esophageal and Upper GI Defects-A Narrative Review

Anastomotic defects are deleterious complications after either oncologic or bariatric surgery, leading to high morbidity and mortality. Besides surgical revision in early stages or instable patients, endoscopic treatment has become the mainstay. To date, many options for endoscopic treatment in this setting exist, including fully covered metal stent placement, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), endoscopic internal drainage with pigtail placement (EID), leak closure with through the scope or over the scope clips, endoluminal suturing, fibrin glue sealing and a combination of all these techniques. Current evidence is mostly based on retrospective single and multicenter studies. No guidelines exist in this important field. Treatment options have to be chosen upon each case individually, taking into account clinical and anatomic criteria, such as timing, size, infectious wound complications and hemodynamic stability. Local expertise and availability of treatment devices need to be taken into account whenever choosing a treatment strategy. This review aimed to present current treatment options in terms of effectiveness, advantages and disadvantages in order to guide the clinician for his decision making. Additionally, we aimed to provide a treatment algorithm.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Management of Perforations in Gastrointestinal Tract: Expert Review

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all procedures, especially procedures carrying an increased risk for perforation, a thorough discussion between the endoscopist and the patient (preferably together with the patient's family) should include details of the procedural techniques and risks involved. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: The area of perforation should be kept clean to prevent any spillage of gastrointestinal contents into the perforation by aspirating liquids and, if necessary, changing the patient position to bring the perforation into a non-dependent location while minimizing insufflation of carbon dioxide to avoid compartment syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Use of carbon dioxide for insufflation is encouraged for all endoscopic procedures, especially any endoscopic procedure with increased risk of perforation. If available, carbon dioxide should be used for all endoscopic procedures. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: All endoscopists should be aware of the procedures that carry an increased risk for perforation such as any dilation, foreign body removal, any per oral endoscopic myotomy (Zenker's, esophageal, pyloric), stricture incision, thermal coagulation for hemostasis or tumor ablation, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, ampullectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoluminal stenting with self-expanding metal stent (SEMS), full-thickness endoscopic resection, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in surgically altered anatomy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary and pancreatic access, EUS-guided cystogastrostomy, and endoscopic gastroenterostomy using a lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Urgent surgical consultation should be highly considered in all cases with perforation even when endoscopic repair is technically successful. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For all upper gastrointestinal perforations, the patient should be considered to be admitted for observation, receive intravenous fluids, be kept nothing by mouth, receive broad-spectrum antibiotics (to cover Gram-negative and anaerobic organisms), nasogastric tube (NGT) placement (albeit some exceptions), and surgical consultation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For upper gastrointestinal tract perforations, a water-soluble upper gastrointestinal series should be considered to confirm the absence of continuing leak at the perforation site before initiating a clear liquid diet. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopic closure of esophageal perforations should be pursued when feasible, utilizing through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) or over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) for perforations <2 cm and endoscopic suturing for perforations >2 cm, reserving esophageal stenting with SEMS for cases where primary closure is not possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopic closure of gastric perforations should be pursued when feasible, utilizing TTSCs or OTSCs for perforations <2 cm and endoscopic suturing or combination of TTSCs and endoloop for perforations >2 cm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: For large type 1 duodenal perforations (lateral duodenal wall tear >3 cm), being cognizant of the difficulty in closing them endoscopically, urgent surgical consultation should be made while the feasibility of endoscopic closure is assessed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Because type 2 periampullary (retroperitoneal) perforations are subtle and can be easily missed, the endoscopist should carefully assess the gas pattern on fluoroscopy to avoid delays in treatment and request a computed tomography scan if there is a concern for such a perforation; identified perforations of this type at the time of ERCP may be closed with TTSCs if feasible and/or by placing a fully covered SEMS into the bile duct across the ampulla. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For the management of large duodenal polyps, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should only be performed by experienced endoscopists and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) only by experts because both EMR and ESD in the duodenum require proficiency in resection and mucosal defect closure techniques to manage immediate and/or delayed perforations (caused by the proteolytic enzymes of the pancreas). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Endoscopists should be aware that colon perforations occurring during diagnostic colonoscopy are most commonly located in the sigmoid colon due to direct trauma from forceful advancement of the colonoscope. Such tears recognized at the time of colonoscopy may be closed by TTSCs or OTSCs if the bowel preparation is good and the patient is stable. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Although colon perforation is responsive to various endoscopic tools such as TTSC, OTSC, and endoscopic suturing, perforations in the right colon, especially in the cecum, have been relegated to using only TTSCs because of inability to reach the site of the perforation with an endoscopic suturing device or OTSC if the colon is tortuous or unclean. Recently a new suture-based device for defect closure has been introduced allowing deep submucosal and intramuscular enhanced fixation through a standard gastroscope or colonoscope. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: Patients with perforations who are hemodynamically unstable or who have suffered a delayed perforation with peritoneal signs or frank peritonitis should be surgically managed without any attempt at endoscopic closure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 16: In any adverse event including perforation, it is paramount to ensure accurate documentation, prompt discussion with the patient and family, and swift reporting to the quality officer (or equivalent) and risk management team of the institution (in major adverse events).

Novel through-the-scope twin clip for the closure of GI wounds: the first experimental survival study in pigs (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We developed a through-the-scope twin clip (TTS-TC) for closing GI wounds. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the TTS-TC in GI wound closure.

METHODS

GI nonperforating and perforating wounds (≥2.5 cm) were created in live pigs. TTS-TCs were used to convert the large wounds into small wounds. The remaining small wounds were closed using conventional through-the-scope clips (TTSCs). The follow-up period was 1 month. Location and size of the wound, time of wound closure, intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, and conditions of wound healing were investigated.

RESULTS

Thirteen wounds were created in 5 live pigs, including 2 gastric nonperforating and 3 perforating wounds and 5 large intestinal nonperforating and 3 perforating wounds. The mean long and short diameters of the wounds were 4.1 (± .9) cm and 3.4 (± .7) cm, respectively. All wounds were successfully closed using the TTS-TCs combined with TTSCs. The total mean time for wound closure was 9.2 (± 5.3) minutes, and the mean time for using the TTS-TCs was 3.9 (± 4.7) minutes. During the 1-month follow-up period, no bleeding, perforation, or death occurred; all wounds healed with scar formation; and all TTS-TCs detached spontaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

The TTS-TC was successfully used to close large-sized GI wounds. The TTS-TC is a promising tool for large-size wound closure under flexible endoscopy.

Transgastric Drainage for Esophageal Injuries: A Dynamic Strategy for a Heterogenous Patient Cohort

BACKGROUND

Esophageal injury is a rare but potentially lethal surgical emergency. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality because of mediastinal contamination and difficulty of access. Surgery in such septic patients exacts a heavy physiological price, mandating consideration of more conservative measures. We review our experience with transgastric drainage for esophageal perforation and high-risk anastomotic dehiscence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A select cohort of patients presenting with esophageal perforation, or complex anastomotic leaks, over 10 years were considered for transgastric drainage (TGD). A modified 36F chest drainage tube was inserted by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy technique, either endoscopically or at open surgery, and a negative pressure (-10 cmH2O) was applied until the leak had sealed. Endpoints include, length of stay, restoration of gastrointestinal tract continuity and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 14 patients treated, 10 had perforations and 4 had complex anastomotic leaks. Ten patients had drainage alone, while 4 required concomitant operative intervention. The median duration of drain insertion for those treated with TGD alone was 19.5 days. Complete restoration of gastrointestinal tract continuity was achieved in all patients. There was no procedure-related morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSION

These results show that TGD is a safe and effective management strategy. We advocate its use alone or as an adjunct to operative treatment for esophageal perforation or anastomotic leaks. This is the first report of completely endoscopic TGD for esophageal perforation.

A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Management of Sleeve Gastrectomy Leaks

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery leaks result in significant morbidity and mortality. Experts report variable therapeutic approaches, without uniform guidelines or consensus.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pathogenesis, risk factors, prevention, and treatment of gastric sleeve leaks, with a focus on endoscopic approaches. In addition, the efficacy and success rates of different treatment modalities are assessed.

DESIGN

A comprehensive review was conducted using a thorough literature search of 5 online electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science) from the time of their inception through March 2020. Studies evaluating gastric sleeve leaks were included. MeSH terms related to "endoscopic," "leak," "sleeve," "gastrectomy," "anastomotic," and "bariatric" were applied to a highly sensitive search strategy. The main outcomes were epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 2418 studies of which 438 were incorporated into the review. Shock and peritonitis necessitate early surgical intervention for leaks. Endoscopic therapies in acute and early leaks involve modalities with a focus on one of: (i) defect closure, (ii) wall diversion, or (iii) wall exclusion. Surgical revision is required if endoscopic therapies fail to control leaks after 6 months. Chronic leaks require one or more endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical approaches for fluid collection drainage to facilitate adequate healing. Success rates depend on provider and center expertise.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic management of leaks post sleeve gastrectomy is a minimally invasive and effective alternative to surgery. Their effect may vary based on clinical presentation, timing or leak morphology, and should be tailored to the appropriate endoscopic modality of treatment.

Closure of colonic deep mural injury and perforation with endoclips

INTRODUCTION

colorectal perforations are one of the most feared complications after performing an endoscopic resection. The use of endoclips is considered for the management of these complications.

OBJECTIVES

to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of endoclips in the management of perforations and deep mural injuries that occur after an endoscopic colorectal resection.

METHODS

a prospective cohort of consecutively included patients was used with a diagnosis of perforation or deep mural injury after an endoscopic colorectal resection treated with endoclips in our institution. The rates of perforation and deep mural injury were obtained. The factors associated with an unfavorable evolution after the placement of the endoclips were analyzed.

RESULTS

after 342 endoscopic mucosal resections (EMR) and 42 endoscopic submucosal dissections (ESD), there were 25 cases with perforation or deep mural injury. The deep mural injury rate was 3.22 % and 7.14 % in the case of EMR and ESD, respectively. The perforation rate was 1.46 % and 14.29 % in the case of EMR and ESD, respectively. Successful closure with endoclips was achieved in 24 cases (96 %). Only one patient presented an unfavorable evolution (10 %) after successful closure. The factors associated with an unfavorable evolution were the presence of diffuse peritoneal symptoms and a perforation size greater than or equal to 10 mm.

CONCLUSION

endoscopic closure with endoclips is effective to avoid surgery in cases of deep mural injury or perforation after an endoscopic resection.

Use of omental patch and endoscopic closure technique as an alternative to surgery after endoscopic full thickness resection of gastric intestinal stromal tumors: A series of cases

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) originate from interstitial cells of Cajal. GISTs can occur anywhere along the gastrointestinal tract. Large lesions have traditionally been removed surgically. However, with recent innovations in advanced endoscopy, GISTs located within the stomach are now removed endoscopically. We describe a new innovative endoscopic technique to close large and hard to access defects after endoscopic full-thickness resection of gastric GISTs.

CASE SUMMARY

We present a series of three patients who were diagnosed with a gastric GIST. All patients underwent full-thickness endoscopic resection. In all cases, for closure of the surgical bed, conventional endoscopic techniques including hemoclips, endoloop and suturing were unsuccessful. We performed a new technique in which we pulled omental fat into the gastric lumen and completely closed the defect using endoscopic devices. All patients performed well post-procedure and computed tomography was carried out one day after the procedures which showed no extravasation of contrast.

CONCLUSION

The omental plug technique may be used as an alternative to surgery in selected cases of gastric perforation.

Use of the Over the Scope Clip to Close Perforations and Fistulas

In gastrointestinal perforation or fistula, endoscopic closure techniques could be used as alternatives to surgery. Early endoscopic recognition and treatment of gastrointestinal perforation is the most important factor determining procedural success and clinical outcomes. The over-the-scope clip with full-thickness grasping capability provides greater technical and clinical success rates compared with the through-the-scope clips. Although the technical success rate of chronic fistula closure is comparable to perforation closure, it has a significantly lower clinical success owing to its less healthy tissue edge of the fistula. The over-the-scope clip system should be considered before surgery for the closure of perforation and fistula.

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.

The analysis of outcomes of surgical management for colonoscopic perforations: A 16-years experiences at a single institution

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy-induced colonic perforation often requires surgical management. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes after surgery for colonoscopic perforations (CPs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review study of 48 patients who underwent surgery for CPs between January 2002 and May 2017. The patients were divided into two groups: Group I (n = 25) had diagnostic CPs, and Group II (n = 23) had therapeutic CPs.

RESULTS

The most common perforation sites in Group I were the sigmoid colon (n = 19; 76.0%), whereas in Group II were the transverse colon (n = 10, 43.5%) and sigmoid colon (n = 10, 43.5%; p = 0.013). The surgeries performed were primary closure (n = 16, [64.0%] Group I; n = 11 [47.8%] Group II) and bowel resection (n = 9 [36.0%] Group I; n = 11 [47.8%] Group II). The rate of temporary stomas was higher in Group II (n = 9, 26.1%) than Group I (n = 2, 8.0%; p = 0.030). The re-perforation rate after surgery was 8.0% (n = 2) in Group I and 8.7% (n = 2) in Group II (p = 0.568). These re-perforation patients all those who had a simple closure without a wedge resection. The conversion rate after laparoscopic surgery was 20.0% (n = 2 of 10) in Group I and 33.3% (n = 1 of 3) in Group II.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management is one of the important therapies in the treatment of CP. Simple primary closure without a wedge resection should be used cautiously. Therapeutic CPs was associated with more temporary stoma formation. The type of surgery should be carefully selected, depending on the type of CP.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for non-ampullary duodenal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is commonly used to treat early-stage digestive cancer because it results in a higher frequency of en-bloc resection and a lower frequency of local recurrence. However, the efficacy and safety of duodenal ESD remain unclear. Therefore, present study is aimed at evaluating clinical outcomes of duodenal ESD.

METHODS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of duodenal ESD, electronic databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL and EMBASE) were searched by two independent reviewers. The authors were contacted for additional information. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duodenal ESD.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies (203 patients) were included in the quantitative synthesis analysis. The pooled proportions of the frequencies of en-bloc resection, need for surgical intervention, bleeding, intraoperative perforation and delayed perforation were 87%, 4%, 2%, 15% and 2%, respectively. The quality of evidence regarding on surgical intervention outcomes was rated as moderate, whereas that of en-bloc resection was rated as low because of its marked inconsistency.

CONCLUSIONS

Duodenal ESD produced acceptable outcomes in terms of the en-bloc R0 resection, but the incidence of procedure-related adverse events is high (PROSPERO register, CRD42017057110).

Endoscopic closure of iatrogenic colon perforation using dual-channel endoscope with an endoloop and clips: methods and feasibility data (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Colon perforation is the most serious complication associated with colonoscopic procedures. We performed a novel purse-string suture technique to close the iatrogenic colonic perforation using dual-channel endoscope with an endoloop and clips.

METHODS

Iatrogenic colon perforations developed during diagnostic colonoscopy referred to a tertiary hospital over 10 years were considered for this endoscopic closure. An endoloop was inserted through the left channel of the endoscope and placed around the defect. The first clip was placed at the proximal site of the defect through the other channel of the endoscope, and the endoloop was anchored on the mucosa around the defect. Then, subsequent clips were placed next to previous clips and the endoloop was fixed. After the defect was encircled by the endoloop and clips, the rim of the opening was approximated by fastening the endoloop with a purse-string technique.

RESULTS

A total of 8 patients were admitted to our hospital because of iatrogenic colon perforations during diagnostic colonoscopy. Of these, 2 underwent laparoscopic surgery and 6 underwent endoscopic closure by this novel purse-string suture technique. The estimated diameters of the perforations were 20 mm. All cases were successfully treated in the endoscopy unit without sedation or general anesthesia, and recovered without any complication or subsequent operation. Abdominal pain had nearly resolved within 3 days after the procedure in all patients, and only mild peritonitis was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Iatrogenic colon perforation can be treated with a purse-string suture technique using dual-channel endoscope with an endoloop and clips. This technique can be useful for relatively large colon perforations associated with diagnostic colonoscopy.

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.

Endoscopic Band Ligation Is Able to Close Perforations Caused by Colonoscopy: A Porcine Model Study

Objective

Diagnostic colonoscopy is important for diagnosing colorectal diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal tumours. Perforation during diagnostic colonoscopy, a rare but serious complication, is a considerable factor before performing the procedure. Immediate endoluminal closure of a perforation could prevent the adverse consequences associated with general anaesthesia and surgery. This study is aimed at assessing the potential effectiveness and safety of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in closing a colon perforation during endoscopy in a porcine model.

Methods

Colon perforations were created and then subsequently closed with EBL in six porcine models. After 28 days of careful follow-up, pigs were euthanized for clinical and pathologic evaluations.

Results

All colon perforations were successfully closed using EBL in pigs. The mean time of perforation closure with EBL was 244.3 seconds with one to two bands, and there were no immediate complications or clinical manifestations of peritonitis or sepsis in any animals. No pericolonic abscess or peritonitis was found during necropsy. Histopathology demonstrated reepithelialization of the mucosa at the perforation site.

Conclusions

Immediate closure of perforations caused during colonoscopy with EBL is feasible and safe in a porcine model.

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.

Endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors in the gastrointestinal tract, and about 60% of them are found in the stomach. With the widespread application of endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), more and more gastric GISTs are being found in an early stage (with a relative small diameter and no metastasis), giving the chance of complete resection. Endoscopic resection such as endoscopic band ligation (EBL), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER), is a minimally invasive method compared with the conventional surgical approaches (open or laparoscopic), and has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for treating gastric GISTs. This review summarizes the recent advances on endoscopic resection of gastric GISTs, aiming to provide a rational management strategy for gastric GISTs.

Endoscopic Management of Benign Esophageal Ruptures and Leaks

OPINION STATEMENT

Esophageal leaks (EL) and ruptures (ER) are rare conditions associated with a high risk of mortality and morbidity. Historically, EL and ER have been surgically treated, but current treatment options also include conservative management and endoscopy. Over the last decades, interventional endoscopy has evolved as an effective and less invasive alternative to primary surgery in these cases. A variety of techniques are currently available to re-establish the continuity of the digestive tract, prevent or treat infection related to the leak/rupture, prevent further contamination, drain potential collections, and provide nutritional support. Endoscopic options include clips, both through the scope (TTS) and over the scope (OTS), stent placement, vacuum therapy, tissue adhesive, and endoscopic suturing techniques. Theoretically, all of these can be used alone or with a multimodality approach. Endoscopic therapy should be combined with medical therapy but also with percutaneous drainage of collections, where present. There is robust evidence suggesting that this change of therapeutic paradigm in the form of endoscopic therapy is associated with improved outcome, better quality of life, and shortened length of hospital stay. Moreover, recent European guidelines on endoscopic management of iatrogenic perforation have strengthened and to some degree regulated and redefined the role of endoscopy in the management of conditions where there is a breach in the continuity of the GI wall. Certainly, due to the complexity of these conditions and the variety of available treatment options, a multidisciplinary approach is strongly recommended, with close clinical monitoring (by endoscopists, surgeons, and intensive care physicians) and special attention to signs of sepsis, which can lead to the need for urgent surgical management. This review article will critically discuss the literature regarding endoscopic modalities for esophageal leak and perforation management and attempt to place them in perspective for the physician.

Endoscopic management of esophageal leaks

Traditionally, gold standard treatment for an acute esophageal perforation has been operative repair. Over the past two decades, there has been a paradigm shift towards the use of esophageal stents. Recent advances in biomaterial allowed a new generation of stents to be manufactured that combined (I) a non-permeable covering; (II) radial force sufficient to occlude a transmural esophageal injury and (III) improved ease of removability. The amalgamation of these developments set the stage for utilizing esophageal stents as part of the management algorithm of an acute esophageal perforation. This provides a safe and less invasive treatment route in lieu of direct primary repair and its well-documented significant failure rate. Esophageal stent placement for failed operative repair or esophageal leaks also had the potential to minimize the need for esophageal resection and diversion. When included in a multimodality hybrid treatment protocol, esophageal stents can optimize healing success rates and minimize the risks of adverse complications. This review summarizes the modern history of esophageal stent use in the treatment of esophageal perforation as well as the evidenced based recommendations for the use of esophageal stent placement in the treatment of acute esophageal perforation.

New devices and techniques for endoscopic closure of gastrointestinal perforations

Gastrointestinal perforations, which need to be managed quickly, are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Treatments used to close these perforations range from surgery to endoscopic therapy. Nowadays, with the development of new devices and techniques, endoscopic therapy is becoming more popular. However, there are different indications and clinical efficacies between different methods, because of the diverse properties of endoscopic devices and techniques. Successful management also depends on other factors, such as the precise location of the perforation, its size and the length of time between the occurrence and diagnosis. In this study, we performed a comprehensive review of various devices and introduced the different techniques that are considered effective to treat gastrointestinal perforations. In addition, we focused on the different methods used to achieve successful closure, based on the literature and our clinical experiences.