Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for the treatment of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Increasing trends of laparoscopic procedures in non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy over 17 years at a single center: Retrospective case-control study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the diseases requiring surgery during pregnancy, the changes in surgical methods over time, and the characteristics of surgeries performed in different trimesters.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A retrospective study conducted at Bundang CHA Hospital between 2006 and 2023 analyzed surgeries performed during pregnancy and compared laparoscopic and open approaches across the three trimesters of pregnancy. Additionally, general (appendicitis, cholecystitis) and gynecologic (heterotopic pregnancy, adnexal torsion) cases were compared.

RESULTS

Among 36 181 delivery patients, 101 (0.28%) underwent surgery. The most common conditions were appendicitis (44.6%), cholecystitis (1.9%), heterotopic pregnancy (23.8%), adnexal torsion (27.7%), and cancer (1.9%). The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (41.5 ± 19.3 vs. 57.9 ± 33.9 min, p = 0.009) and hospital stay (4.9 ± 2.7 vs. 9.0 ± 9.8 days, p = 0.016) than open surgery group. Heterotopic pregnancy (47.1%) and adnexal torsion (39.2%) were common in the first trimester, whereas appendicitis peaked in the second (80%) and third trimesters (66.7%). The increasing use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) has led to a rise in gynecological patients requiring surgery in the first trimester, resulting in more laparoscopic surgeries during this period. Interestingly, an increase in laparoscopic surgery was also observed in general surgery during the second and third trimesters. Perioperative tocolysis was more frequent (51.1% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.001) and of longer duration (4.6 ± 8.8 vs. 0.1 ± 0.6 days, p = 0.001) after general surgical procedures.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy offers several advantages such as shorter operative time and hospital stay. Since 2011, laparoscopic surgery for the entire gestational period has been on the rise.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Surgical management of pediatric multiple magnet ingestions in the past two decades of minimal access surgery- systematic review of operative approaches

BACKGROUND

Multiple magnet ingestion is increasingly reported in paediatrics and can cause significant morbidity. Various surgical approaches exist, though minimal literature compares outcomes between techniques. This review evaluates laparoscopic, laparoscopic-assisted, and open surgery with regard to outcomes.

METHOD

Systematic review across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science identified reports of paediatric multiple magnet ingestion managed surgically between 2002 and 2022.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine studies were included, reporting data from 136 cases. Of these, 82 (60%) underwent laparotomy, 43 (32%) laparoscopic surgery, and 11 (8%) laparoscopic-assisted procedures. Sixteen laparoscopic cases were converted to open, often due to intraoperative findings including necrosis/perforation, or grossly dilated bowel. Bowel perforation occurred in 108 (79%); 47 (35%) required bowel resection, and 3 had temporary stoma formation. Postoperative recovery was uneventful in 118 (86%). Complications were reported following 15 (18%) open and 3 (7%) laparoscopic surgeries. No complications occurred following laparoscopic-assisted surgery. All post-laparoscopic complications were Clavien-Dindo (CD) Grade I. Following open surgery, 5 complications were CD grade I, 6 were CD grade II, and 4 were CD grade IIIb, requiring re-laparotomy. Median length of stay for open and laparoscopic-assisted procedures was 7 days, and for laparoscopic was 5 days (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Surgical management of multiple magnet ingestion often achieved uncomplicated recovery and no long-term sequelae. Whilst open laparotomy was the more common approach, laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced length of stay and postoperative complications. Therefore, in experienced hands, laparoscopic surgery should be considered first-line, with the possibility of conversion to open if required.

A Review of Cognitive Support Systems in the Operating Room

BACKGROUND

In recent years, numerous innovative yet challenging surgeries, such as minimally invasive procedures, have introduced an overwhelming amount of new technologies, increasing the cognitive load for surgeons and potentially diluting their attention. Cognitive support technologies (CSTs) have been in development to reduce surgeons' cognitive load and minimize errors. Despite its huge demands, it still lacks a systematic review.

METHODS

Literature was searched up until May 21st, 2021. Pubmed, Web of Science, and IEEExplore. Studies that aimed at reducing the cognitive load of surgeons were included. Additionally, studies that contained an experimental trial with real patients and real surgeons were prioritized, although phantom and animal studies were also included. Major outcomes that were assessed included surgical error, anatomical localization accuracy, total procedural time, and patient outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were included. Overall, the implementation of CSTs had better surgical performance than the traditional methods. Most studies reported decreased error rate and increased efficiency. In terms of accuracy, most CSTs had over 90% accuracy in identifying anatomical markers with an error margin below 5 mm. Most studies reported a decrease in surgical time, although some were statistically insignificant.

DISCUSSION

CSTs have been shown to reduce the mental workload of surgeons. However, the limited ergonomic design of current CSTs has hindered their widespread use in the clinical setting. Overall, more clinical data on actual patients is needed to provide concrete evidence before the ubiquitous implementation of CSTs.

General Surgery During Pregnancy and Gynecologic Emergencies

Nonobstetrical surgical emergencies can occur throughout pregnancy but are often difficult to diagnose due to the physiologic and anatomical changes that occur during pregnancy. Medical providers should have insight into these changes and be familiar with options for the diagnosis and management of common nonobstetrical surgical emergencies, such as appendicitis, cholecystitis, and small bowel obstruction. Surgeons should also be aware of obstetrical emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancy and severe vaginal bleeding, which may be life threatening to mother and the fetus. Intraoperatively, surgeons should be familiar with minimally invasive approaches for surgical diseases and special anesthetic considerations for pregnant patients.

Methods of Surgical Repair for Iatrogenic Sigmoid Colon Perforation Following Colonoscopy: A Case Report and Literature Review

Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a relatively infrequent yet perilous complication arising from both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies, potentially leading to severe septic complications and increased morbidity or mortality. Given the gravity of potential complications, surgical intervention stands as the principal treatment strategy, with various modalities selected based on clinical discretion. In this context, we present the case of a patient who underwent primary laparoscopic repair following the identification of a sigmoid colon perforation during a routine colonoscopy. Intraoperatively, a Jackson-Pratt drain was placed to facilitate postoperative monitoring and drainage. The patient's hospitalization extended to a total of seven days due to sustained drainage and leukocytosis, highlighting the complexities of managing postoperative complications in such cases. This report underscores the current landscape of published data guiding the surgical management of iatrogenic colonic perforation following colonoscopy and highlights both the existing strengths and gaps within the current body of literature. As colonic perforation remains a critical concern in endoscopic procedures, a comprehensive understanding of optimal surgical interventions is crucial for minimizing patient morbidity and ensuring successful outcomes.

Learning curves in robot-assisted minimally invasive liver surgery at a high-volume center in Denmark: Report of the first 100 patients and review of literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive liver surgery is evolving worldwide, and robot-assisted liver surgery (RLS) can deliver obvious benefits for patients. However, so far no large case series have documented the learning curve for RLS.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study for robotic liver surgery (RLS) from June 2019 to June 2022 where 100 patients underwent RLS by the same surgical team. Patients' variables, short-term follow-up, and the learning curve were analyzed. A review of the literature describing the learning curve in RLS was also conducted.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 63.1 years. The median operating time was 246 min and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL. Thirty-two patients underwent subsegmentectomy, 18 monosegmentectomies, 25 bisegmentectomies, and 25 major hepatectomies. One patient (1.0%) required conversion to open surgery. Five patients (5%) experienced postoperative major complications, and no mortalities occurred. Median length of hospital stay was 3 days. R0 resection was achieved in 93.4% of the malignant cases. The learning curve consisted of three stages; there were no significant differences in operative time, transfusion rate, or complication rate among the three groups. Postoperative complications were similar in each group despite an increase in surgical difficulty scores. The learning effect was highlighted by significantly shorter hospital stays in cohorts I, II, and III, respectively. The included systematic review suggested that the learning curve for RLS is similar to, or shorter, than that of laparoscopic liver surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, RLS has achieved good clinical results, albeit in the short term. Standardization of training leads to increasing proficiency in RLS with reduced blood loss and low complication rates even in more advanced liver resections. Our study suggests that a minimum of 30 low-to-moderate difficulty robotic procedures should be performed before proceeding to more difficult resections.

Propensity score matching analysis of laparoscopic surgery vs. open approach in 4 297 adult patients with acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis or gastrointestinal tract perforation: a prospective multicentre study of nationwide outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies indicated that laparoscopic surgery could improve postoperative outcomes in acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcer, or acute diverticulitis, but some reported opposite results or differences in the magnitude of improvement. A contemporary analysis using propensity score matching that compares outcomes is lacking.

METHODS

Over a 6-month period, 38 centres (5% of all public hospitals) attending emergency general surgery patients on a 24 h, 7 days a week basis, enroled all consecutive adult patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery or open approach.

RESULTS

The study included 2 645 patients with acute appendicitis [32 years (22-51), 44.3% women], 1 182 with acute cholecystitis [65 years (48-76); 46.7% women], and 470 with gastrointestinal tract perforation [65 years (50-76); 34% women]. After propensity score matching, hospital stays decreased in acute appendicitis [open, 2 days (2-4); lap, 2 days (1-4); P <0.001], acute cholecystitis [open, 7 days (4-12); lap, 4 days (3-6); P <0.001], and gastrointestinal tract perforation [open, 11 days (7-17); lap, 6 days (5-8.5); P <0.001]. A decrease in 30-day morbidity was observed in acute appendicitis (open, 15.7%; lap, 9.7%; P <0.001), acute cholecystitis (open, 41%; lap, 21.7%; P <0.001), and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 45.2%; lap, 23.5%; P <0.001). A decrease in 30-day mortality was found in acute cholecystitis (open, 8.8%; lap, 2.8%; P =0.013) and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 10.4%; lap, 1.7%; P =0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This clinically based, multicentre study suggests that an initial laparoscopic approach could be considered not only in patients with acute appendicitis or acute cholecystitis but also in patients with a perforation of the gastrointestinal tract.

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.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Genitourinary Trauma: A Nationwide Outcomes-Based Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Bladder and ureteral injuries are uncommon in trauma patients but are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients presenting with such injuries may undergo either open surgical repair or laparoscopic repair. We aimed to compare outcomes of open surgical approach and laparoscopy in trauma patients with isolated bladder and ureteral injury. We hypothesized that laparoscopy is associated with improved outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a 2017 review of American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program and identified trauma patients with bladder and ureteral injury who underwent open surgical repair or laparoscopy. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed adjusting for demographics, emergency department vitals (systolic blood pressure, heart rate, Glasgow Coma Scale), mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, each body region Abbreviated Injury Scale score, and transfusion units. Outcomes were rates of in-hospital major complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 1,004,440 trauma patients, 384 patients (open: 192 and laparoscopy: 192) were matched and included. The mean age was 36 ± 15 y, Injury Severity Score was 27 [27-48], 77% were males, and 56% of patients had a blunt mechanism of injury, and 44% had penetrating injuries. Overall mortality was 7.3%. On univariate analysis, mortality was lower in the open group as compared to the laparoscopy group (10.4% versus 4.2%, P = 0.019) and survivor-only hospital length of stay was longer in the open group (8 [8-9] versus 7 [5-11], P = 0.008). There was no difference in overall major complications (23% versus 21%, P = 0.621). On multivariate analysis, open surgical repair was independently associated with lower odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.405, 95% confidence interval: [0.17-0.95], P-value = 0.038) CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis open surgical repair of bladder and ureteral injuries was associated with lower mortality with other outcomes being similar when compared to laparoscopy. Laparoscopic surgical repair may not have an advantage over the open surgical repair for bladder and ureteral injuries. Further prospective studies are needed to delineate the ideal surgical approach for these injuries.

Endoscopy Deliverable and Mushroom-Cap-Inspired Hyperboloid-Shaped Drug-Laden Bioadhesive Hydrogel for Stomach Perforation Repair

Gastrointestinal tract perforation is a full-thickness injury that causes bleeding and fatal infection of the peritoneum. This condition worsens in an acidic gastric environment which interferes with the normal coagulation cascade. Current endoscopic clips to repair gastric perforations are ineffective, and metal or plastic occluders need secondary surgery to remove them. Herein, we report a self-expandable, endoscopy deliverable, adhesive hydrogel to block gastric perforation. We found the nanosilica coating significantly enhanced the adhesive strength even under a simulated strong acidic stomach environment. The developed device was disulfide cross-linked for the reducible degraded gel. By loading with vonoprazan fumarate (VF) and acidic fibroblast growth factor (AFGF), the hyperboloid-shaped device can have a sustained drug release to regulate intragastric pH and promote wound healing. The gel device can be compressed and then expanded like a mushroom when applied in an acute gastric perforation model in both rabbits and minipigs. By utilizing a stomach capsule robot for remotely monitoring the pH and by immunohistochemical analysis, we demonstrated that the compressible hyperboloid-shaped gel could stably block the perforation and promoted wound healing during the 28 days of observation. The real-time pH meter demonstrated that the gel could control intragastric pH above 4 for nearly 60 h to prevent bleeding.

Analysis of the Characteristics of Colonoscopy Perforation and Risk Factors for Failure of Endoscopic Treatment

Background: Many studies have been done regarding perforation after colonoscopy, but few studies analyzed the risk factors of endoscopic treatment failure after colonoscopy perforation. This study aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics and treatment plan of those patients with perforation after colonoscopy diagnosis and the treatment and risk factors of failure to endoscopic treatment.

Method: This was a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent colonoscopy examination and treatment at the Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, from 04/2009 to 03/2020. The patients were grouped as perforation, treatment success, or failure (required laparoscopy or laparotomy).

Results: From April 2009 to March 2020, 43,470 patients were examined and treated with colonoscopy. There were 35 cases of intestinal perforation, for an incidence of 0.081%. Four patients had immediate surgical intervention (two patients with laparoscopic surgery and two with laparotomy surgery). Thirty-one (88.57%) patients underwent endoscopic treatment. Endoscopic treatment was successful in 20 patients and failed in 11. Compared with the failure group, the perforation size in the success group was smaller (7.60±4.85 vs. 14.4±7.03 mm, P=0.004), hospital stay was shorter (26.6±13.1 vs. 14.2±3.0, P=0.011), and hospitalization costs were lower (30,208±9506 vs. 23,053±6227 RMB, P=0.002). Multivariable logistic stepwise analysis showed that the absence of abdominal pain after therapeutic colonoscopy was independently associated with the success of endoscopic treatment.

Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment is logically the preferred modality for perforation management, leading to good recovery, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs of treatment. Postoperative abdominal pain is significantly related to the failure of endoscopic treatment.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for repairing colonoscopic perforation: a multicenter study

PURPOSE

We conducted this study to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) vs. open surgery (OS) for repairing colonoscopic perforation, and to evaluate the possible predictors of complications.

METHOD

We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent surgical repair of colonoscopic perforation by LS or OS between January 2005 and June 2019 at six Hallym University-affiliated hospitals. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify the predictors of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Of the total 99 patients, 40 underwent OS and 59 underwent LS. The postoperative hospital stay and the time to resuming a soft diet were shorter in the LS group than in the OS group (P = 0.017 and 0.026, respectively). The complication rate and Clavien-Dindo classification were not significantly different between the two groups. Multivariable analysis revealed that an American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) ≥ 3 and switching from non-operative management to surgical treatment were independently associated with complications (P = 0.025 and 0.010, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LS may be a safe alternative to OS for repairing colonoscopic perforation with a shorter postoperative hospital stay and time to resuming a soft diet. Patients with an ASA score ≥ 3 and those with changes to their planned treatment should be monitored carefully to minimize their risk of complications.

Decreased Length of Stay After Laparoscopic Diaphragm Repair for Isolated Diaphragm Injury After Penetrating Trauma

BACKGROUND

Isolated diaphragm injury (IDI) occurs in up to 30% of penetrating left thoracoabdominal injuries. Laparoscopic abdominal procedures have demonstrated improved outcome including decreased postoperative pain and length of stay (LOS) compared to open surgery. However, there is a paucity of data on this topic for penetrating IDI. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and outcome of laparoscopic diaphragmatic repair versus open diaphragmatic repair (LDR vs ODR) of IDI.

METHODS

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients with IDI who underwent ODR versus LDR. A bivariate analysis using Pearson chi-square and Mann-Whitney test was performed to determine LOS among the two groups.

RESULTS

From 2039 diaphragm injuries, 368 patients had IDI; 281 patients (76.4%) underwent ODR and 87 (23.6%) underwent LDR. Compared to LDR, the ODR patients were older (median, 31 vs 25 years, P < .001) and had a higher injury severity score (mean, 11.2 vs 9.6, P = .03) but had similar rates of intensive care unit LOS, unplanned return to the operating room, ventilator days, and complications (P > .05). Patients undergoing ODR had a longer LOS (5 vs 4 days, P = .01), compared to LDR. There were no deaths in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma patients presenting with IDI undergoing ODR had a longer hospital LOS compared to patients undergoing LDR with no difference in complications or mortality. Therefore, we recommend when possible an LDR should be employed to decrease hospital LOS. Further research is needed to examine other benefits of laparoscopy such as postoperative pain, incisional hernia, and wound-related complications.

Clinical Characteristics of Colonoscopic Perforation and Risk Factors for Complications After Surgical Treatment

Background: There are few studies on postoperative complications after colonoscopic perforation. We aimed to study clinical characteristics and treatment after colonoscopic perforation, and to determine risk factors for postoperative complications by surgical treatment of colonoscopy perforation. Methods: Cases with perforation within 7 days after colonoscopy from January 2017 to December 2019 were collected for retrospective analysis. Data regarding demography, clinical information, colonoscopy, perforation, and operation were collected. Single-factor analysis and Spearman correlation analysis were employed to determine the risk factors of postoperative complications. Results: A total of 35,243 colonoscopy examinations were performed during the study period, of which 18 cases of colonoscopic perforation were included in the criteria. Most perforations occurred in the rectosigmoid junction (3 cases) and sigmoid colon (11 cases). All perforation patients received operational treatment, and the incidence of postoperative complications was 38.9%, but no deaths. There were 7 patients who developed postoperative complications. Spearman correlation analysis showed that preoperative medication of glucocorticoid and nonrectosigmoid perforation were positively related to postoperative complications (P < .05), while perforation diagnosed immediately and satisfying intestinal cleanliness were negatively related to it (P < .05). Conclusion: Perforation is a rare but serious complication of colonoscopy, which mostly occurs in the rectosigmoid junction and sigmoid colon. Laparoscopic primary repair is safe and feasible in resolving colonic perforation due to colonoscopy, and postoperative complications were significantly related to perforation site, preoperative medication of glucocorticoid, perforation diagnosis time, and intestinal cleanliness.

Safety and Efficacy of Single-Port Laparoscopic Ileostomy in Palliative Settings

Purpose

Single-port laparoscopic techniques can be optimized with confined incisions. This approach has an intraoperative advantage of excellent visualization of the correct intestinal segment for exteriorization, along with direct visual control of the extraction to avoid twisting. However, only a few studies have verified the efficacy of the technique. Thus, this study assessed the results of single-port laparoscopic stoma creation for fecal diversion, specifically focusing on feasibility, safety, and efficacy.

Methods

Patients who underwent single-incision enterostomy performed by a single surgeon were included. Data on demographics, indications for and chosen procedure, and operation results were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

Results

Between April 2015 and January 2018, a total of 13 patients (8 males, 5 females) with a mean age of 57.7 years (range, 41–83 years) underwent single-port ileostomy creation. The most common reason for diversion was palliative ileostomy for colon obstruction or fistula from peritoneal malignancy (n = 12), followed by colonic fistula with necrotizing pancreatitis (n = 1). There were no cases of conversion to open or multiport laparoscopic surgery. The mean operative time was 54 minutes (range, 37–118 minutes), and the median length of hospital stay was 8 days (range, 2–211 days). A postoperative complication, aspiration pneumonia, was documented in 1 patient and treated conservatively. The mean duration of bowel movement was 0.7 days (range, 0–4 days). All stomas had good function, and there was no 30-day mortality.

Conclusion

Single-port laparoscopic ileostomy in patients with a palliative setting could be a safe and feasible option for fecal diversion.

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.

Recognition and Management of Colonic Perforation following Endoscopy

Although rare, perforation can be a devastating complication of colonoscopy. Incidence ranges from 0.012 to 0.65% during diagnostic procedures and is higher in therapeutic procedures. Early diagnosis and management are of paramount importance to decrease morbidity. Diagnostic imaging after colonoscopy can reveal extraintestinal air, but overall clinical status including leukocytosis, fever, pain, and peritonitis is equally important to determine management. With the expanding availability of complex endoscopic interventions, an increasing number of perforations are recognized during colonoscopy or immediately afterward based on high degree of suspicion. Colonoscopic management of these early perforations may be feasible and avoid the morbidity of surgery. Patients who require surgery may be managed with laparoscopic or open surgical techniques. Surgical management may consist of primary repair of the injury, resection with anastomosis, or resection with ostomy. Mechanical bowel preparation before endoscopy decreases fecal contamination after perforation, often obviating the need for ostomy creation.

Treatment of colonoscopic perforation: outcomes from a major single tertiary institution

BACKGROUND

The use of colonoscopy has been increasing in Australia. This case series describes management and outcomes of colonoscopic perforation managed by a single tertiary referral unit.

METHODS

An analysis of 13 years (2003-2015) of prospectively collected data on patients who had a colonoscopic perforation and were managed by the colorectal unit at a single tertiary referral centre was performed. Main outcomes were time of diagnosis, modality of management, time to theatre, length of stay, cost of admission and complications.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients had perforations (median age of 69 years). Thirty-eight (61.2%) patients had their colonoscopy performed in another institution. The incidence rate decreased to 0.37 perforations per 1000 colonoscopies within Western Health. Overall, diagnostic colonoscopies accounted for 56% of perforations and perforations were likely to occur in the left colon (P = 0.006). Fifty-one (82%) patients underwent surgery during their admission, with 24% of these being laparoscopic procedures. An earlier diagnosis was associated with significantly less intra-abdominal contamination. Gross peritoneal contamination was more likely to be associated with the decision to form a stoma (37%, n = 19, P = 0.04). Thirty-day mortality was 1.6% (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopic perforations occur in experienced hands and may have serious implications. We demonstrated a difference in patterns of injury between therapeutic and diagnostic colonoscopies. Those who have an earlier diagnosis are less likely to have severe intra-abdominal contamination requiring a stoma formation.

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.