Recognition of Extraperitoneal Colonic Perforation following Colonoscopy: A Review of the Literature

Pneumothorax, Pneumomediastinum, and Cervical and Facial Massive Emphysema Secondary to Colonoscopy: A Rare Complication of Colonoscopy

Background

Colonoscopy is a resource used for the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of benign and malignant colorectal pathologies. The incidence of perforation is 0.03%-0.65% in diagnostic colonoscopy; however, the incidence can be up to 10 times higher in therapeutic interventions, such as polypectomies, increasing the risk of complications up to 0.07-2.1%. Materials and methods. Case report of a 71-year-old female who presents a rare complication due to a perforation in the sigmoid which developed pneumoperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, and massive subcutaneous emphysema as a complication of a diagnostic colonoscopy where a biopsy of a friable lesion was performed.

Results

A 71-year-old female that went to the emergency room due to acute generalized abdominal colic spasm pain with a duration of 7 hours, associated with significant abdominal distension, malaise, diaphoresis, progressive dyspnea, and massive subcutaneous emphysema that developed after performing panendoscopy and colonoscopy for diverticulosis follow-up. An abdominal CT scan with double contrast was performed, reporting suggestive data of hollow viscus perforation, pneumoperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, and massive subcutaneous emphysema in the thorax, neck, and skull base. She underwent an exploratory laparotomy finding a perforation in the sigmoid for which sigmoidectomy was performed, and for the pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum, endopleural tubes were placed in both hemithoraxes. The massive subcutaneous emphysema subsided with observation and oxygen.

Conclusion

A rare complication of the use of colonoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic method is presented. The purpose of presenting this case is for the doctor who performs these interventions to suspect this complication in a timely manner, not delaying the diagnosis and carrying out an urgent therapeutic approach as in this case with exploratory laparotomy, finding the perforation site and carrying out the corresponding surgical management. We demonstrated that massive subcutaneous emphysema can be managed with observation if there is no other alarm data evident that required another surgical approach.

Intraperitoneal anatomy with the aid of pathologic fluid and gas: An imaging pictorial review

The peritoneum is a large serosal membrane enveloping the abdomen and pelvic organs and forming the peritoneal cavity. This complex relationship forms many named abdominopelvic spaces, which are frequently involved in infectious, inflammatory, neoplastic, and traumatic pathologies. The knowledge of this anatomy is essential to the radiologist to localize and describe the extent of the disease accurately. This manuscript provides a comprehensive pictorial review of the peritoneal anatomy to describe pathologic fluid and gas.

Blowing off steam-Identifying bowel perforation after routine colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is an effective procedure for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Perforation is a rare yet the most severe complication, identified by landmarks-double dolphin, triangle, or double-wall sign signifying air and intracolonic contents leaking into the peritoneal space. Prompt recognition and surgical intervention are imperative to avoid high mortality.

Mesenteric Tear Can Be Caused by Abdominal Counter-Pressure Applied During Colonoscopy

Patient: Female, 72-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Mesenteric hematoma

Symptoms: Abdominal pain • bloating • nausea • vomiting

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: Screening colonoscopy • followed by open laparoscopy with the evacuation of a hematoma

Specialty: Gastroenterology and Hepatology • Surgery

Pneumomediastinum, Pneumoretroperitoneum, Pneumoperitoneum and Subcutaneous Emphysema Secondary to a Penetrating Anal Injury

Simultaneous occurrence of pneumoperitoneum, pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema is rare. The most reported mechanisms are barotrauma, thermal injury and instrument puncture caused by colonoscopy. Ectopic air may travel into different body compartments through distinct anatomical fascial planes. Definite curative treatment involves surgical repair of the bowel wall defect. Conservative treatment is available in selected patients. Here, we present a case of traumatic penetrating rectal injury leading to developing air in the peritoneum, retroperitoneum, mediastinum, and subcutaneous space with good recovery under conservative treatment.

Public preferences for using quantitative faecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy as diagnostic test for colorectal cancer: evidence from an online survey

BACKGROUND

There has been interest in using the non-invasive, home-based quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in high-risk symptomatic patients.

AIM

To elicit public preferences for FIT versus colonoscopy (CC) and its delivery in primary care.

DESIGN & SETTING

A cross-sectional online survey in England.

METHOD

A total of 1057 adults (without CRC symptoms and diagnosis) aged 40-59 years were invited from an English online survey panel. Responders were asked to imagine they had been experiencing CRC symptoms that would qualify them for a diagnostic test. Participants were presented with choices between CC and FIT in ascending order of number of CRCs missed by FIT (from 1-10%). It was measured at what number of missed CRCs responders preferred CC over FIT.

RESULTS

While 150 participants did not want either of the tests when both missed 1% CRCs, the majority (n = 741, 70.0%) preferred FIT to CC at that level of accuracy. However, this preference reduced to 427 (40.4%) when FIT missed one additional cancer. Women were more likely to tolerate missing CRC when using FIT. Having lower numeracy and perceiving a higher level of risk meant participants were less likely to tolerate a false negative test. Most of those who chose FIT preferred to return it by mail (62.2%), to be informed about normal test results by letter (42.1%), and about abnormal test results face to face (32.5%).

CONCLUSION

While the majority of participants preferred FIT over CC when both tests had the same sensitivity, tolerance for missed CRCs was low.

Intraperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Colonic Perforation Following Diagnostic and Therapeutic Colonoscopy with Crohn's-related Stricture Dilation

Colonic perforation is an uncommon but known and feared complication of colonoscopy, which carries a high mortality rate. We present an uncommon case of extensive intra- and extraperitoneal air following colonic perforation in a patient undergoing inpatient colonoscopy for evaluation of unintentional weight loss and constipation. During colonoscopy, a splenic flexure stricture was identified and dilated. Postprocedural hemodynamic instability prompted further imaging which revealed pneumoperitoneum, bilateral pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pneumopericardium, and severe subcutaneous emphysema. Emergent exploratory laparotomy found perforation of the proximal transverse colon which required resection and transverse colostomy placement. The patient also underwent bilateral chest tube placement and was treated with antibiotics for peritonitis. The patient was eventually diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and discharged to an extended care facility with outpatient follow-up. Extraperitoneal colonic perforations are fairly rare, and to our knowledge, we present the most severe case that has been published in recent years.

ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is the most commonly performed endoscopic procedure and overall is considered a low-risk procedure. However, adverse events (AEs) related to this routinely performed procedure for screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes are an important clinical consideration. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on estimates of AEs related to colonoscopy in an evidence-based fashion. A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies was conducted for the 3 most common and important serious AEs (bleeding, perforation, and mortality). In addition, this document includes an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of serious AEs (bleeding and perforation) related to EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colon polyps. Finally, a narrative review of other colonoscopy-related serious AEs and those related to specific colonic interventions is included.

Pneumoretroperitoneum with subcutaneous emphysema after a post colonoscopy colonic perforation

•

Colonic perforation after colonoscopy could be intraperitoneal, extraperitoneal or a combination of both.

•

Majority of the perforations are intraperitoneal.

•

Risk factors include advance age, female sex, diverticulosis, previous abdominal surgery and colonic strictures.

•

Extraperitoneal perforations can manifest as pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax and/or subcutaneous emphysema.

•

Non operative management in isolated retroperitoneum while surgery required in majority of peritoneal perforation.

Introduction

Colonoscopy is considered as one of the most common performed procedures for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Serious complication after colonoscopy could occurs like bleeding or perforation. Majority of the perforations are intraperitoneal, while extraperitoneal perforations are very rare and it may cause pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax and subcutaneous emphysema.

Presentation of the case

A case report was described of 80-year-old female who underwent a diagnostic colonoscopy for recurrent abdominal pain who presented with severe abdominal pain and tenderness with CT findings of pneumoperitoneum, pneumoretroperitoneum and subcutaneous emphysema. The patient successfully treated surgically with laparoscopic Hartman procedure.

Discussion

Colonic perforation is rare complication of colonoscopy that can manifest intraperitoneal, extraperitoneal or a combination of both. Patient risk factors include advance age, female sex, diverticulosis, previous abdominal surgery and pre-existing colonic strictures. Technical risk factors includes excessive shearing forces during endoscopic insertion, dilation, biopsy and using electrocautery. Majority of the intraperitoneal perforation warrant a surgical intervention whereas isolated extraperitoneal perforation may be managed conservatively.

Conclusion

Combined intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal colonic perforation are rare presentations following diagnostic colonoscopy and often difficult to diagnose based on the clinical manifestation only. Understanding the manifestation of extraperitoneal perforation will help to properly identify the condition and preventing morbidity and mortality in these patients.

The Close Relationship between Large Bowel and Heart: When a Colonic Perforation Mimics an Acute Myocardial Infarction

Colonoscopic perforation is a serious and potentially life-threatening complication of colonoscopy. Its incidence varies in frequency from 0.016% to 0.21% for diagnostic procedures, but may be seen in up to 5% of therapeutic colonoscopies. In case of extraperitoneal perforation, atypical signs and symptoms may develop. The aim of this report is to raise the awareness on the likelihood of rare clinical features of colonoscopic perforation. A 72-year-old male patient with a past medical history of myocardial infarction presented to the emergency department four hours after a screening colonoscopy with polypectomy, complaining of neck pain, retrosternal oppressive chest pain, dyspnea, and rhinolalia. Right chest wall and cervical subcutaneous emphysema, pneumomediastinum, pneumoretroperitoneum, and bilateral subdiaphragmatic free air were reported on the chest and abdominal X-rays. The patient was treated conservatively, with absolute bowel rest, total parental nutrition, and broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics. Awareness of the potentially unusual clinical manifestations of retroperitoneal perforation following colonoscopy is crucial for the correct diagnosis and prompt management of colonoscopic perforation. Conservative treatment may be appropriate in patients with a properly prepared bowel, hemodynamic stability, and no evidence of peritonitis. Surgical treatment should be considered when abdominal or chest pain worsens, and when a systemic inflammatory response arises during the conservative treatment period.