Management of iatrogenic colorectal perforation: From surgery to endoscopy

Clinical outcomes and risk factors of post-polypectomy microperforation in patients with colorectal neoplasia: a case-control study

Background

Colonoscopic polypectomy significantly reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer, but it carries potential risks, with colonic perforation being the most common and associated with significant morbidity.

Objectives

This study evaluated the clinical outcomes and risk factors of microperforation during colonoscopic polypectomy.

Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the patients' records who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy and subsequent plain radiographic examination to monitor perforation. Patients with pneumoperitoneum detected on plain radiography were enrolled. Patients who underwent adverse event-free colonoscopic polypectomies within 1 week of each case and were matched 2:1 by age and sex to the cases were selected as controls.

Results

Microperforations occurred in 12 patients (8 males; age: median 64.5 years). Polyps with microperforations were more frequent in the right colon (83.3% vs 33.3%). Endoscopic mucosal resection with precutting (EMR-P; 16.7% vs 0.0%) or hot-snare polypectomy (8.3% vs 0.0%) was more frequently performed in the microperforation group. Muscle fibers at the polypectomy site were more frequently visible in the microperforation group (58.3% vs 8.3%). By multivariate analysis, right colon location and visible muscle fibers were independent risk factors for microperforation. All patients with microperforation received intravenous antibiotics and were advised to fast. Patients responded well to these conservative treatments and were discharged after a median of 3 (2-6.75) days of hospital stay.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that conservative treatment is feasible and could be the primary management option for selected patients with microperforations postcolonoscopic polypectomy. Right-sided colonic polyps and visible muscle fibers predispose to microperforations.

Risk factors and management of iatrogenic colorectal perforation in diagnostic colonoscopy: a single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Diagnostic colonoscopy plays a central role in colorectal cancer screening programs. We analyzed the risk factors for perforation during diagnostic colonoscopy and discussed the treatment outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of risk factors and treatment outcomes of perforation during 74,426 diagnostic colonoscopies between 2013 and 2018 in a tertiary hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 19 perforations were identified after 74,426 diagnostic colonoscopies or sigmoidoscopies, resulting in a standardized incidence rate of 0.025% or 2.5 per 10,000 colonoscopies. The majority (15 out of 19, 79%) were found at the sigmoid colon and recto-sigmoid junction. Perforation occurred mostly in less than 1000 cases of colonoscopy (16 out of 19, 84%). In particular, the incidence of perforation was higher in more than 200 cases undergoing slightly advanced colonoscopy rather than beginners who had just learned colonoscopy. Old age (≥ 70 years), inpatient setting, low body mass index (BMI), and sedation status were significantly associated with increased risk of perforation. Nine (47%) of the patients underwent operative treatment and ten (53%) were managed non-operatively. Patients who underwent surgery were often diagnosed with delayed or concomitant abdominal pain. Perforations of rectum tended to be successfully treated with endoscopic clipping.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional precautions are required to prevent perforation in elderly patients, hospital settings, low BMI, sedated patients, or by a doctor with slight familiarity with endoscopies (but still insufficient experience). Endoscopic treatment should be actively considered if diagnosis is prompt, abdominal pain absent, and especially the rectal perforation is present.

Constipation and colonoscopy

Constipation is a significant sociomedical problem, which can be caused by various reasons. In the diagnostic approach to patients with constipation, the following data are usually sufficient: History, complete physical examination (including rectal examination), and additional diagnostic tests. A colonoscopy is not a necessary diagnostic method for all patients with constipation. However, if patients have alarm symptoms/signs, that suggest an organic reason for constipation, a colonoscopy is necessary. The most important alarm symptoms/signs are age > 50 years, gastrointestinal bleeding, new-onset constipation, a palpable mass in the abdomen and rectum, weight loss, anemia, inflammatory bowel disease, and family history positive for colorectal cancer. Most endoscopists do not like to deal with patients with constipation. There are two reasons for this, namely the difficulty of endoscopy and the adequacy of preparation. Both are adversely affected by constipation. To improve the quality of colonoscopy in these patients, good examination techniques and often more extensive preparation are necessary. Good colonoscopy technique implies adequate psychological preparation of the patient, careful insertion of the endoscope with minimal insufflation, and early detection and resolution of loops. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy often requires prolonged preparation and sometimes the addition of other laxatives.

Endoclip combined with colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing: a new approach for managing iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation (ICP) is a rare but most serious complication during colonoscopy investigation. However, endoscopic closure plays an important role in the dealing with ICP with the development of endoscopic techniques presently, there are still some portion of patients transferred to surgery.

METHODS

Once a perforation was detected, endoclips were used to closed the defect of the colon. Then a colonic TET was planted inside the colon. The terminal end of the TET was put proximally to or near the location of the perforation. Then gas and fluid was sucked out through the TET with a syringe every 4 h.

RESULTS

Three cases were treated with endoclip closure and colonic TET drainage. Case 1 was caused by urgent immediate perforation during routine colonoscopy, case 2 was delayed perforation after snare resection, and case 3 was ESD-related perforation. All patients got healed, no one transferred to surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of endoclip closure and colonic TET drainage might be an easy and potential method in the dealing with different types of ICP. This study may offer a novel paradigm for addressing endoscopy-related intestinal perforations.

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.

Incidence of colonoscopy-related perforation and risk factors for poor outcomes: 3-year results from a prospective, multicenter registry (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Perforation is a life-threatening adverse event of colonoscopy that often requires hospitalization and surgery. We aimed to prospectively assess the incidence of colonoscopy-related perforation in a multicenter registry and to analyze the clinical factors associated with poor clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was conducted at six tertiary referral hospitals between 2017 and 2020, and included patients with colonic perforation after colonoscopy. Poor clinical outcomes were defined as mortality, surgery, and prolonged hospitalization (> 13 days). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with poor clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 84,673 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 56 had colon perforation (0.66/1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.86). Perforation occurred in 12 of 63,602 diagnostic colonoscopies (0.19/1000, 95% CI 0.11-0.33) and 44 of 21,071 therapeutic colonoscopies (2.09/1000, 95% CI 1.55-2.81). Of these, 15 (26.8%) patients underwent surgery, and 25 (44.6%) patients had a prolonged hospital stay. One patient (1.8%) died after perforation from a diagnostic colonoscopy. In the multivariate analysis, diagnostic colonoscopy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 196.43, p = 0.025) and abdominal rebound tenderness (aOR 17.82, p = 0.012) were independent risk factors for surgical treatment. The location of the sigmoid colon (aOR 18.57, p = 0.048), delayed recognition (aOR 187.71, p = 0.008), and abdominal tenderness (aOR 63.20, p = 0.017) were independent risk factors for prolonged hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study demonstrated that the incidence of colonoscopy-related perforation was 0.66/1000. The incidence rate was higher in therapeutic colonoscopy, whereas the risk for undergoing surgery was higher in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. Colonoscopy indication (diagnostic vs. therapeutic), physical signs, the location of the sigmoid perforation, and delayed recognition were independent risk factors for poor clinical outcomes in colonoscopy-related perforation.

Endoluminal management of colon perforations during advanced endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Advanced endoscopic procedures are gaining attraction despite a steep learning curve, need for high dexterity, and potential complications. Colonic perforation is the most concerning adverse event during advanced endoscopic procedures. This study presents our experience on endoluminal management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

METHODS

Patients who underwent advanced endoscopic procedures at a quaternary center from 2016 to 2021 were identified. Patients who had colonic perforations during advanced procedures and treated with endoscopic closure/clipping were included. Retrospective chart review was performed. Figures represent frequency (proportion) or median (interquartile range/range).

RESULTS

There were 22 (2.3%) immediate colonic perforations treated with endoscopic clipping out of 964 advanced endoscopic resections. The median age was 64 (interquartile range = 57-71) years and 50% of the patients were female; 16 (73%) resections were proximal to the splenic flexure. Median polyp size was 36 (20-55) mm. Closure was performed with endoscopic clips in 18 (82%) patients, and over-the-scope clips in 4 patients. Median hospital stay was 0.8 (0-4) days, and 13 (59%) patients were discharged the same day; 2 patients were admitted to the emergency department ≤24 hours of procedure. They underwent subsequent laparoscopic suture repair the same day. No one had segmental colon resection, and there were no complications within postoperative 30 days. Pathology revealed 9 (41%) tubular adenomas, 7 (32%) tubulovillous adenomas, 6 (27%) sessile serrated lesions, and no adenocarcinoma. No recurrence was observed with median follow-up of 24 months (range = 0-90 months).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic management is an effective treatment approach for the management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

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.

Design Optimization of a Novel Multifiring Clip Applicator System for Endoscopic Closure of Large Perforations

Endoscopic closure has become the first choice for closing iatrogenic perforations. Previously, we reported a self-developed endoscopic multifiring clip applicator (EMFCA) system. In this paper, a new EMFCA system for endoscopic closure of large perforations with a redesigned clip, the less traumatic grasper, and a highly efficient driving system was presented, and its efficacy was evaluated. The behaviors of the new clip and grasper were verified through finite element analysis (FEA). The capability of pushing transmission for the EMFCA system was identified by the proposed model and the validation experiment. Ex-vivo studies were conducted on porcine stomachs to compare the outcomes of the closures. The FEA results showed that the deformation of the clip was safe and smoother, with a maximum stress of 640.0 MPa. The less traumatic grasper could increase the grasping force and avoid trauma by exerting uniform stress along the axis. The capability of pushing transmission was enhanced by the double-nested tendon-sheath actuation system with an efficiency of 0.45–0.48. The mechanical strength, the leakage pressure, and the operating time for the closures with the new EMFCA system and the previous EMFCA system were 6.1 N ± 0.8 N, 37.1 mmHg ± 6.8 mmHg, 7.3 min ± 0.4 min and 5.1 N ± 1.0 N, 27.4 mmHg ± 6.4 mmHg, 11.4 min ±0.8 min, respectively. The new EMFCA system can realize a superior, reliable, and high-efficiency endoscopic closure of large perforations.

Endoscopic Management of a Tubulovillous Adenoma Within a Diverticulum: Report of a Case and Review of Literature

Adenomas or adenocarcinomas located within a colonic diverticulum are considered a rare phenomenon that has been described in the literature. These lesions are technically difficult to manage endoscopically and usually require surgical intervention for removal. There is also an increased risk of perforation upon endoscopic resection owing to the lack of a muscular layer within the diverticulum. We report a case and include a literature review to evaluate different endoscopic techniques and propose the most effective for management of adenomas within a diverticulum. This technique is potentially comprised of employing a combined approach using a suction banding device, an over-the-scope clip (OTSC; Ovesco Endoscopy AG, Tübingen, Germany) , and hyperthemic snare to successfully remove the polyp, ensure tissue retrieval, and reduce risk of iatrogenic colonic perforation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Diagnosis and treatment of postoperative intestinal perforation in infants and young children with congenital heart disease: A report of three cases

The aim of the present study was to analyze risk factors of intestinal perforation following surgery for the treatment of congenital heart disease in infants and young children, and to summarize experiences of diagnosis and treatment. A total of 3,270 children, who underwent congenital heart disease surgery under extracorporeal circulation from January 2010 to July 2015, were retrospectively analyzed. Among these children, three (0.09%) developed postoperative intestinal perforation. Primary diseases were Tetralogy of Fallot (two cases) and ventricular septal defect combined with atrial septal defect (one case). The age range of the children was 6-11 months and the weight range was 7.3-8.6 kg. Furthermore, these children underwent radical surgery under general anesthesia and extracorporeal circulation in low temperatures. Abdominal symptoms appeared 4-10 days after surgery, and included poor appetite, abdominal distension, intermittent vomiting, high fever, refractory irritability, crying and shortness of breath. One case was confirmed by routine abdominal puncture and the remaining two were confirmed by the detection of free gas under the diaphragm, as revealed by abdominal X-ray. Following the diagnosis of intestinal perforation, emergency intestinal fistula surgery was performed. At 3-5 days post-surgery, the patients underwent treatment by fasting and intravenously administered parenteral nutrition. Diet was increased following recovery of bowel function. All patients recovered following active treatment and 3-4 months following hospital discharge, the fistula was successfully closed. In conclusion, a concerted effort should be made to identify intestinal perforation in infants and young children with postoperative congenital heart disease during emergency surgery. Early diagnosis and treatment may significantly improve prognosis and reduce mortality.

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.

Colonoscopic Perforations

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colon cancer screening. It has led to a decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer mortality. Colon perforation is a feared complication of this procedure with high morbidity and substantial mortality. Due to the high volume of colonoscopies performed, the absolute number of colonoscopic perforations is relatively high. It leads to a substantial cost to the patient and the health system. Understanding the mechanisms and the risk factors may help in preventing perforation. Traditionally, a laparotomy with creation of a stoma was used to address this complication. However, minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy and endoluminal repairs are being used more commonly now. More surgeons are favoring primary anastomosis (with or without a diverting loop ileostomy) than a Hartmann procedure.

Postpolypectomy Intramural Colonic Hematoma: The Conservative Management of a Potentially Fatal Complication

Most medical professionals consider colonoscopy to be a safe procedure with a low rate of severe complications such as bowel perforation, gastrointestinal tract bleeding, or mortality. Bowel wall hematoma is a rare complication associated with colonoscopy that can result in significant morbidity and even mortality. We present a case of postpolypectomy hematoma diagnosed with CT imaging and successfully managed in a conservative fashion.

The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in the emergency departments worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs are early recognition, adequate source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Prompt resuscitation of patients with ongoing sepsis is of utmost important. In hospitals worldwide, non-acceptance of, or lack of access to, accessible evidence-based practices and guidelines result in overall poorer outcome of patients suffering IAIs. The aim of this paper is to promote global standards of care in IAIs and update the 2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections.

Air everywhere: colon perforation after colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is being widely used since the 1980s and is the leading diagnostic procedure for colorectal cancer. For many colorectal diseases, it is also a therapeutic tool. Like many other procedures in Medicine, it has its drawbacks and complications, some of which if not readily diagnosed can represent a serious risk to the patient's health and well-being. We describe a case of colon perforation during diagnostic colonoscopy in a patient, resulting in exuberant pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumoperitoneum, pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema, who successfully underwent laparoscopic colonic resection with primary anastomosis. There are only a few cases of combined intraperitoneal and retroperitoneal perforations described in the literature.

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.

Peri-colonic haematoma following routine colonoscopy

Introduction

We present a case of an extra-luminal haematoma following routine colonoscopy. This case highlights an uncommon but potentially life threatening complication in which there is little published literature to date.

Presentation of case

A 73 year old male presented with abdominal pain and a reduction in haemoglobin following an uneventful colonoscopy. The imaging had been required as part of colorectal cancer follow up. Initial differential diagnosis included colonic perforation and the patient was admitted for further investigations.

Same day CT scan imaging revealed an extra-luminal haematoma in the mid descending colon. The patient was managed non-operatively and was discharged with antibiotics following a period of observation.

Discussion

Colonoscopy is a highly effective imaging modality for direct visualisation of the lower gastrointestinal tract and for simultaneous diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. In recent years the use of colonoscopy has increased greatly, this is largely due to an increasingly aging population, increased availability of the resource and as a consequence of the implementation of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Extra-colonic bleeding following colonoscopy is rare. Causes that have been identified in the literature include splenic injury, mesenteric tears, hepatic injury and retroperitoneal haemorrhage. To the authors' knowledge, there is very little published literature specifically on isolated peri-colonic haematomas following colonoscopy.

Conclusion

This case highlights an unusual but potentially life threatening complication following colonoscopy. Endoscopists and clinicians should be aware of the diagnosis to allow for early recognition and appropriate management.

•

Peri-colonic haematoma is a potentially life threatening complication.

•

A high index of suspicion is required for diagnosis.

•

Peri-colonic haematoma can be managed non operatively.