The Outcomes of Management for Colonoscopic Perforation: A 12-Year Experience at a Single Institute

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colonoscopic perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of colonoscopic perforation is still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LS versus open surgery (OS) for colonoscopic perforation.

METHODS

All clinical trials that compared laparoscopic with OS for colonoscopic perforation published in English were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library searches. A modified scale was used to assess the quality of the literature. We analyzed the age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, type of procedure, size of perforation, operation time, postoperative fasting time, hospital stay, postoperative complication morbidity, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed using weighted mean differences for continuous variables, and odds ratios for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

No eligible randomized trials were identified, but eleven nonrandomized trials were analyzed. In the pooled data of 192 patients who underwent LS and 131 OS, there were no significant differences in age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, perforation size, and operative time between the groups. LS group had shorter time of hospital stay and postoperative fasting time, less postoperative complication morbidity, but there were no significant difference in postoperative mortality rate between LS group and OS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, we conclude that LS is a safe and efficacious technique for colonoscopic perforation, with fewer postoperative complications, less hospital mortality, and faster recovery compared with OS.

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

Objectives

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

Material and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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.

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.

Multicenter retrospective evaluation of ileocecocolic perforations associated with diagnostic lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in dogs and cats

Background

Ileoscopy is increasingly performed in dogs and cats with gastrointestinal signs, but iatrogenic ileocecocolic (ICC) perforations have not been described.

Hypothesis/Objectives

To characterize endoscopic ICC perforations in dogs and cats.

Animals

Thirteen dogs and 2 cats.

Methods

This is a retrospective case series. Signalment, presentation, endoscopic equipment, colonic preparation, endoscopist's experience level, ileal intubation technique, method of diagnosis, perforation location, histopathology, management, and outcome data were collected and reviewed.

Results

Six ileal, 5 cecal, and 4 colonic perforations were identified between 2012 and 2019. Dogs weighed 2.4‐26 kg (median, 10.3 kg) and cats 4.6‐5.1 kg (median, 4.9 kg). Endoscopy was performed in dogs presented for vomiting (n = 4), as well as large (n = 5), mixed (n = 4), and small (n = 1) bowel diarrhea. Cats had large bowel diarrhea. Endoscopists included 1 supervised intern, 9 supervised internal medicine residents (2 first year, 6 second year, 1 third year), and 5 internal medicine diplomates. Diagnosis was delayed in 5 dogs, occurring 1‐5 days after endoscopy (median, 3 days); dogs were presented again with inappetence (n = 4), lethargy (n = 4), abdominal pain (n = 3), retching (n = 2), and syncope (n = 1). All animals underwent surgical correction. Histopathology did not identify lesions at the perforation site in any animal. Two dogs required a second surgery; 1 died 12 hours after surgery. Survival to discharge was 93%, with 78% surviving ≥8 months.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Iatrogenic endoscopic ICC perforation is not indicative of underlying disease and is associated with a good prognosis. Delayed diagnosis can occur. Therefore, perforation should be considered in the differential diagnosis for animals with clinical deterioration after endoscopy.

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.

Laparoscopic repair using an endoscopic linear stapler for management of iatrogenic colonic perforation during screening colonoscopy

Introduction

Colonoscopy is a safe and effective procedure, but it is also an inevitably invasive one. Laparoscopic repair of colonoscopic perforations has been reported to be a safe and effective treatment.

Aim

We present our surgical technique and outcomes of laparoscopic repairs using an endoscopic linear stapler for iatrogenic colonic perforation during screening colonoscopy.

Material and methods

Laparoscopic repair using an endoscopic linear stapler for iatrogenic colonic perforation during screening colonoscopy was performed by two experienced laparoscopic surgeons on 14 consecutive patients between April 2010 and December 2017 at our hospital. Using prospectively collected data, an observational study was performed on a per protocol basis.

Results

The mean age of the 14 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair was 56.6 ±9.1 years. The most common perforation site was the sigmoid colon in 10 (71.4%) patients, followed by the rectosigmoid junction in 3 (21.4%) patients and the splenic flexure in 1 (7.1%) patient. The median perforation size was 10 (range: 5–30) mm. The mean operation time was 73.9 ±28.2 min. Postoperative complications occurred in 1 (7.1%) patient. There was no postoperative mortality or reoperation within 30 days after surgery. The median time to tolerance of a regular diet was 5 (range: 3–6) days. The median postoperative hospital stay was 8.5 (range: 5–15) days.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic repair using an endoscopic linear stapler is a safe, easy, and effective surgical technique to treat colonic perforation related to screening colonoscopy.

Adverse events related to colonoscopy: Global trends and future challenges

Colonoscopy is a widely used method for diagnosing and treating colonic disease. The number of colonoscopies is increasing worldwide, and concerns about associated adverse events are growing. Large-scale studies using big data for post-colonoscopy complications have been reported. A colon perforation is a severe complication with a relatively high mortality rate. The perforation rate, as reported in large studies (≥ 50,000 colonoscopies) published since 2000, ranges from 0.005-0.085%. The trend in the overall perforation rate in the past 15 years has not changed significantly. Bleeding is a more common adverse event than perforation. Recent large studies (≥ 50,000 colonoscopies) have reported post-colonoscopy bleeding occurring in 0.001-0.687% of cases. Most studies about adverse events related to colonoscopy were performed in the West, and relatively few studies have been conducted in the East. The incidence of post-colonoscopy complications increases in elderly patients or patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. It is important to use a unified definition and refined data to overcome the limitations of previous studies. In addition, a structured training program for endoscopists and a systematic national management program are needed to reduce post-colonoscopy complications. In this review, we discuss the current trends in colonoscopy related to adverse events, as well as the challenges to be addressed through future research.

Iatrogenic Colonic Perforations: Changing the Paradigm

PURPOSE

The purpose of our study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of colonoscopic perforations in patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied patients with perforations secondary to diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy between 2009 and 2015 at the Pontevedra Hospital Complex. We analyzed age, closure method, length of hospitalization, and long-term progress.

RESULTS

Of the 34 perforations detected, 67.6% occurred in patients aged below 75 years. Most perforations occurred in the descending colon (55%). Perforations occurred in 55.9% of outpatients and 45% of inpatients. Diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies caused perforations in 20.6% and 79.4% of patients, respectively. Conservative treatment alone was performed in 5.9%, complete or partial endoscopic closure in 14.7%, and surgery in 79.4% of patients. Patients treated only conservatively or with concomitant endoscopic closure showed no mortality. The mortality rate was 14.8% in those treated surgically, and 55% of these patients required a subsequent ostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative management with antibiotics and parenteral nutrition concomitant with complete/partial endoscopic closure effectively treats perforations, provided intraprocedural diagnosis is possible with immediate administration of antibiotics after the procedure. Nevertheless, studies with larger number of patients and statistical analysis are necessary in the near future.

Management Outcomes of Colonoscopic Perforations Are Affected by the General Condition of the Patients

Purpose

The management of a colonoscopic perforation (CP) varies from conservative to surgical. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes between surgical and conservative treatment of patients with a CP.

Methods

From 2003 to 2016, the medical records of patients with CP were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on whether they initially received conservative or surgical treatment.

Results

During the study period, a total of 48 patients with a CP were treated. Among them, 5 patients had underlying colorectal cancer and underwent emergency radical cancer surgery; these patients were excluded. The mean age of the remaining 43 patients was 64.5 years old, and the most common perforation site was the sigmoid colon (15 patients). The initial conservative care group included 16 patients, and the surgery group included 27 patients. In the conservative group, 5 patients required conversion to surgery (failure rate: 5 of 16 [31.3%]). Of the surgery group, laparoscopic surgery was performed on 19 patients and open surgery on 8 patients, including 2 conversion cases. Major postoperative complications developed in 11 patients (34.4%), and postoperative mortality developed in 4 patients (12.5%). The only predictor for poor prognosis after surgery was a high American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification.

Conclusion

In this study, conservative treatment for patients with a CP had a relatively high failure rate. Furthermore, surgical treatment showed significant rates of complications and mortality, which depended on the general status of the patients.

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.