Successful endoscopic repair of an unusual colonic perforation following polypectomy using an endoclip device

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.

Colonoscopic perforations: Single center experience and review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a well-known complication that can increase mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Closer follow-up and a well-planned treatment strategy are required when perforation arises as a complication. The aims of this study are to (1) report our experience with a large colonoscopy series; (2) evaluate the underlying mechanisms of iatrogenic colonic perforation; (3) discuss the ideal period between onset and treatment; and (4) review the current literature regarding the management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who underwent colonoscopy between January 2005 and May 2015 at a single center were reviewed retrospectively. Procedures during which colonic perforations occurred were documented and analyzed.

RESULTS

Between January 2005 and May 2015, 31,655 patients underwent colonoscopy and 5,214 patients underwent recto-sigmoidoscopy at our center. Thirteen of these procedures were associated with perforation. The perforation rate was found to be 0.041%. The most frequent locations of perforation were (a) the rectosigmoid junction, (b) the proximal rectum, and (c) the sigmoid colon. Management included surgical treatment in 11 patients and conservative management in 2 patients. Twelve patients (92.31%) were discharged uneventfully, and death occurred in one (7.69%) patient.

CONCLUSION

Although they are rarely encountered, colonic perforations are serious complications of colonoscopy. A high index of clinical suspicion is required for early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Age, co-morbidities, the location and size of the perforation, and the time interval between onset and diagnosis should be evaluated, and the treatment approach should be planned accordingly.

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

Purpose

Optimal management of colonoscopic perforation (CP) is controversial because early diagnosis and prompt management play critical roles in morbidity and mortality. Herein, we evaluate the outcomes and clinical characteristics of patients with CP according to treatment modality to help establish guidelines for managing CP.

Methods

Our retrospective analysis included 40 CP patients from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014. Patients with CP were categorized into 2 groups according to therapeutic modality: operation (surgery) and nonoperation (endo-luminal clip application or conservative treatment) groups.

Results

The postoperative morbidity rate was 40%, and no mortalities were noted. The incidence of abdominal pain and tenderness in patients who received only conservative management was significantly lower than in those who underwent surgery (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Patients tended to undergo surgery more often for diagnosis times longer than 24 hours and for diagnostic CPs. The mean hospital stays for the operation and nonoperation groups were 14.6 ± 7.77 and 5.9 ± 1.62 days, respectively (P < 0.001). Compared to the operation group, the nonoperation group began intake of liquid diets significantly earlier after perforation (3.8 ± 1.32 days vs. 5.6 ± 1.25 days, P < 0.001) and used antibiotics for a shorter duration (4.7 ± 1.29 days vs. 8.7 ± 2.23 days, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The time of diagnosis and the injury mechanism may be useful indications for conservative management. Nonoperative management, such as endo-luminal clip application, might be beneficial, when feasible, for the treatment of patients with CP.

Repair of a colonoscopic perforation of the rectum with transanal endoscopic microsurgery

Iatrogenic colonic perforations are relatively uncommon but serious complications of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is an useful approach to the rectum and may be used for repair of a rectal perforation during colonoscopy. A 56-year-old male had an iatrogenic perforation of the rectum during a routine follow-up colonoscopy repaired by TEM with an uneventful and rapid recovery.

Endoclip closure of a large colonic perforation following colonoscopic leiomyoma excision

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic removal of large colonic submucosal lesions can lead to a higher risk of perforation. Although not as common following diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy, it does occur more often following therapeutic colonoscopy. We present a case of a large submucosal mass excised endoscopically, resulting in a large perforation that was closed using endoclips. While endoclips are typically used for smaller perforations, we have found that they can be used safely on a larger defect.

METHODS

A 68-y-old woman presented with a 2.9-cm benign submucosal mass found in the hepatic flexure. It was removed via endoscopic polypectomy, leaving a perforation of 3cm x 3cm. The perforation was closed with endoscopic clips.

RESULTS

Histology of the specimen showed clear margins. At 4-wk follow-up, the patient had no complications. A colonoscopy at 6-mo follow-up showed only a scar at the procedure site with no complaints.

CONCLUSIONS

Large iatrogenic colonic perforations can be managed successfully using endoclips, particularly in a prepped colon.

Endoscopic complications--avoidance and management

The frequency of endoscopic complications is likely to rise owing to the increased number of indications for therapeutic procedures and also to the increased complexity of endoscopic techniques. Informed patient consent should be obtained as part of the procedure. Prevention of endoscopic adverse events is based on knowledge of the relevant risk factors and their mechanisms of occurrence. Thus, suitable training of future gastroenterologists and endoscopists is required for these complex procedures. When facing a complication, appropriate management is generally provided by an early diagnosis followed by prompt therapeutic care tailored to the situation. The most common complications of diagnostic and therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, retrograde cholangiopancreatography, small bowel endoscopy and colonoscopy are reviewed here. Different modalities of medical, endoscopic or surgical management are also considered.

Therapeutic endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy is the primary diagnostic and therapeutic tool for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The performance of endoscopic therapy depends on findings of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH). For peptic ulcer disease-the most common etiology of UGIB-endoscopic therapy is indicated for findings of major SRH, such as active bleeding, oozing, or the presence of a nonbleeding visible vessel, but not indicated for minor SRH, such as a pigmented flat spot or a simple ulcer with a homogeneous clean base. Endoscopic therapies include injection, ablation, and mechanical therapy. Monotherapy reduces the risk of rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease with major SRH to about 20%. Combination therapy, especially injection followed by either ablation or mechanical therapy, is generally recommended to further reduce the risk of rebleeding to about 10%. Endoscopic dual hemostasis by an experienced endoscopist reduces the risk of rebleeding, the need for surgery, the number of blood transfusions required, and the length of hospital stay. This Review article comprehensively analyzes the principles, indications, instrumentation, techniques, and efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis.

Endoscopic closure of acute iatrogenic perforations during diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy in the gastrointestinal tract using metallic clips: a literature review

Iatrogenic perforations that occur during the endoscopic procedures are generally surgically managed, even if some authors prefer a non-surgical approach in selected cases. The endoscopic application of metallic clips has been widely used in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract for hemostasis and also for marking lesions. Since 1993 several series of endoscopic perforations treated with endoclips have been described in the literature. In this review we offer a descriptive analysis of the reported cases of the acute iatrogenic perforation, describing the closure of different perforations occurring in the GI tract, treated with metallic clips.

Colonoscopic perforation: Incidence, risk factors, management and outcome

This review discusses the incidence, risk factors, management and outcome of colonoscopic perforation (CP). The incidence of CP ranges from 0.016% to 0.2% following diagnostic colonoscopies and could be up to 5% following some colonoscopic interventions. The perforations are frequently related to therapeutic colonoscopies and are associated with patients of advanced age or with multiple comorbidities. Management of CP is mainly based on patients’ clinical grounds and their underlying colorectal diseases. Current therapeutic approaches include conservative management (bowel rest plus the administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics), endoscopic management, and operative management (open or laparoscopic approach). The applications of each treatment are discussed. Overall outcomes of patients with CP are also addressed.

Endoscopic closure of gastrointestinal leaks

Surgery has been the mainstay of therapy in patients with gastrointestinal perforations. This paradigm started to shift with the development of techniques for endoscopic closure of gastrointestinal perforations. A detailed review of the literature on this subject, along with a commentary on practical aspects in the management of patients with gastrointestinal leaks, is provided here.

Iatrogenic rectal perforation during operative colonoscopy: closure with endoluminal clips

The risk of perforation during diagnostic or operative colonoscopy can be as high as 2%. Despite conservative treatment being acceptable, the closure of the perforation is usually mandatory, and surgery (either open or laparoscopic) is commonly advocated as rescue therapy. Currently, with the availability of the Endoclip, endoscopists are able to manage iatrogenic perforations avoiding surgery. Clip placement, if necessary, will not delay surgery and might help the surgeon find the site of perforation. However, data in the literature are scant, especially for the closure of large colonic defects. Endoscopic repair using Endoclip devices for a large high rectal perforation following polypectomy is described herein.

Gastrointestinal perforation and the acute abdomen

The acute abdomen accounts for up to 40% of all emergency-surgical hospital admissions and is considered in the differential in the more than 7 million visits to the emergency department annually for abdominal pain in the United States. A large percentage of these cases are secondary to perforation or impending gastrointestinal perforation. Gastrointestinal perforation causes considerable mortality and usually requires emergency surgery.Rapid diagnosis and treatment of these conditions is essential to reduce the high morbidity and mortality of late-stage presentation. Successful treatment requires a thorough understanding of the anatomy, microbiology, and pathophysiology of this disease process and in-depth knowledge of the therapy, including resuscitation,antibiotics, source control, and physiologic support.

Reducing the incidence and mortality of colon cancer: mass screening and colonoscopic polypectomy

Most colon cancers arise from conventional adenomatous polyps (conventional adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence), while some colon cancers appear to arise from the recently recognized serrated adenomatous polyp (serrated adenoma-to-carcinoma theory). Because conventional adenomas and serrated adenomas are usually asymptomatic, mass screening of asymptomatic patients has become the cornerstone for detecting and eliminating these precursor lesions to reduce the risk of colon cancer. Colonoscopy has become the primary screening test because of its high sensitivity and specificity, and the ability to perform polypectomy. Other screening tests include guaiac tests or fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for fecal occult blood, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. A minimal colonoscopic withdrawal time of 6 minutes is important to maximize polyp detection at colonoscopy. Chromoendoscopy is an experimental technique used to highlight abnormal colonic areas to identify neoplastic tissue and to potentially determine the histology of colonic polyps at colonoscopy based on superficial pit anatomy.