Colonoscopic perforation: useful parameters for early diagnosis and conservative treatment

Risk Factors for Perforation in Endoscopic Treatment for Early Colorectal Cancer: A Nationwide ENTER-K Study

Background/Aims

Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC.

Methods

This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC.

Results

This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival.

Conclusions

Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

A Case of Pneumoperitoneum after Colonoscopy without Frank Perforation

Benign pneumoperitoneum can happen after colonoscopy, which shows itself as free air in the abdomen without symptoms or pneumoperitoneum without peritonitis. In this case, we reported a rare case of an elderly man who had acute abdominal stiffness after colonoscopy and observation of free air under the diaphragm that no perforation was observed in the intestine during laparoscopy and only one tiny intestinal tumor was randomly reported. There is no consensus on the treatment of pneumoperitoneum after colonoscopy. Patients with peritonitis benefit from laparoscopy but patients with micro perforation and asymptomatic patients benefit from intravenous antibiotic treatment and bowel rest.

Gastric Perforation as a Complication of COVID-19 Infection: A Case Report

Pulmonary symptoms are the primary manifestation of the COVID-19 disease, which originated in Wuhan in China in December 2019. However, it is now established to show widespread extrapulmonary manifestations, including gastrointestinal involvement. Abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting are considered the most common gastrointestinal symptoms. Gastric perforation in association with COVID-19 is rarely reported in the literature. Here, we report a case of a 71-year-old male COVID-19-infected patient, medically free, who presented to the emergency department complaining of severe abdominal pain for a one-week duration. He was diagnosed with a case of perforated viscus and septic shock. The patient was shifted to the operating room for exploratory laparotomy. We aim in this report to highlight this fatal complication of COVID-19 infection in order to improve patients' outcomes.

COVID-19 Infection Related Bowel Perforation

During an ongoing pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel virus, new discoveries about its complications and treatment are made every day. Bowel perforation is another rarely reported complication due to the virus itself leading to ischemia or can be due to the treatment with antiviral drugs that reduces the integrity of epithelial barriers. This makes the bowel more prone to perforation even in patients with no prior history of bowel disease. We report a case of bowel perforation in a 72-year-old male patient with severe COVID-19 infection.

Clinical features and outcomes of bowel perforation in primary pediatric gastrointestinal lymphoma

Background

Whether surgery can improve the prognosis of patients with primary pediatric gastrointestinal lymphoma (PPGL) who experienced bowel perforation remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of such patients.

Methods

Nine patients pathologically diagnosed with PPGL who experienced perforation at our center between January 2010 and December 2020 were enrolled and divided into two groups: those with perforation during (n = 4) and before (n = 5) chemotherapy. Their medical records were reviewed, and long-term follow-up was conducted by telephone in February 2021.

Results

All patients with perforation during chemotherapy were diagnosed with PPGL in the outpatient department. The mean time from outpatient visit to chemotherapy was 17.3 ± 6.1 days. Two patients experienced perforation during the first chemotherapy regimen and received conservative treatment, while the others developed perforation after multiple chemotherapy regimens and underwent surgery. All of the patients received regular chemotherapy and survived for a mean follow-up time of 3.8 ± 1.9 years. No patient with perforation before chemotherapy had a definite diagnosis in the outpatient department. Among these patients, 4 experienced perforation and underwent surgery, of whom 3 developed perforation-related complications and died; the other recurred after chemotherapy. Only the patient who received conservative treatment was diagnosed with PPGL before chemotherapy, received regular chemotherapy, and survived without a recurrence for 1.0 year.

Conclusion

Prompt diagnosis and chemotherapy improve the prognosis of PPGL. Surgery does not affect the prognosis of patients with perforation during chemotherapy but may accelerate disease progression in patients with perforation before chemotherapy.

Gastrointestinal perforation secondary to COVID-19: Case reports and literature review

INTRODUCTION

Corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) presents primarily with respiratory symptoms. However, extra respiratory manifestations are being frequently recognized including gastrointestinal involvement. The most common gastrointestinal symptoms are nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain. Gastrointestinal perforation in association with COVID-19 is rarely reported in the literature.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSIS

In this series, we are reporting 3 cases with different presentations of gastrointestinal perforation in the setting of COVID-19. Two patients were admitted with critical COVID-19 pneumonia, both required intensive care, intubation and mechanical ventilation. The first one was an elderly gentleman who had difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation and required tracheostomy. During his stay in intensive care unit, he developed Candidemia without clear source. After transfer to the ward, he developed lower gastrointestinal bleeding and found by imaging to have sealed perforated cecal mass with radiological signs of peritonitis. The second one was an obese young gentleman who was found incidentally to have air under diaphragm. Computed tomography showed severe pneumoperitoneum with cecal and gastric wall perforation. The third case was an elderly gentleman who presented with severe COVID-19 pneumonia along with symptoms and signs of acute abdomen who was confirmed by imaging to have sigmoid diverticulitis with perforation and abscess collection.

INTERVENTIONS

The first 2 cases were treated conservatively. The third one was treated surgically.

OUTCOME

Our cases had a variable hospital course but fortunately all were discharged in a good clinical condition.

CONCLUSION

Our aim from this series is to highlight this fatal complication to clinicians in order to enrich our understanding of this pandemic and as a result improve patients' outcome.

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.

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.

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Defects and Closure Techniques

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastrointestinal transmural defects are defined as total rupture of the gastrointestinal wall and can be divided into three main categories: perforations, leaks, and fistulas. Due to an increase in the number of therapeutic endoscopic procedures including full-thickness resections and the increase incidence of complications related to bariatric surgeries, there has been an increase in the number of transmural defects seen in clinical practice and the number of non-invasive endoscopic treatment procedures used to treat these defects.

RECENT FINDINGS

The variety of endoscopic approaches and devices, including closure techniques using clips, endoloop, and endoscopic sutures; covering techniques such as the cardiac septal occluder device, luminal stents, and tissue sealants; and drainage techniques including endoscopic vacuum therapy, pigtail, and septotomy with balloon dilation are transforming endoscopy as the first-line approach for therapy of these conditions. In this review, we describe the various transmural defects and the endoscopic techniques and devices used in their closure.

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

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.

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Primary Repair in the Treatment of Colonic Perforation After Colonoscopy: A Review of 40,127 Patients

BACKGROUND

In recent years, increasing colonoscopy use increases the incidence of colonic perforation. Colonic perforation during colonoscopy is a rare but extremely serious complication. Traditionally, the management of colonic perforation is explorative laparotomy with bowel resection. Treatment using laparoscopic approach is a novel approach, and has been reported in some recent literatures. Nowadays, the using of laparoscopic primary repair in treatment of colonoscopic perforations has not been confirmed. This study retrospectively reviewed our experiences in treating colonoscopic perforations by laparoscopic primary repair.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic primary repair in the treatment of colonic perforations during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Between January 2003 and December 2014, data were collected retrospectively on all patients who underwent colonoscopy and compared the recovery parameters and morbidity of patients who underwent laparoscopic primary repair versus those who had open surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 40,127 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. There were 24 patients who underwent primary repair [13 underwent laparoscopic surgery (LS) and 8 underwent open surgery (OS)]. There were no demographic differences between the LS and OS groups (P>0.05). Compared with OS group, patients who underwent laparoscopic repair had a significantly shorter incision length (LS: 3.15±0.35 mm vs. OS: 12.60±2.87 mm, P=0.000), fewer blood loss (LS: 28.54±10.82 mL vs. OS: 159.25±46.90 mL, P=0.000), shorter postoperative hospital stay (LS: 8.31±1.93 d vs. OS: 12.38±1.41 d, P=0.000), and shorter postoperative fasting time (LS: 3.38±0.7 d vs. OS: 5.25±0.71 d, P=0.000). The operative time of LS group was a little longer than OS group, but there were no significant differences (LS: 86.31±22.22 min vs. OS: 75.125 ±14.24 min, P=NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic primary repair is safe and effective in resolving colonic perforation due to colonoscopy, and it might offer benefits over the open approach.

Risk Factors for Additional Surgery after Iatrogenic Perforations due to Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Objectives. Endoscopic resection (ER) is commonly performed to treat gastric epithelial neoplasms and subepithelial tumors. The aim of this study was to predict the risk factors for surgery after ER-induced perforation. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the data on patients who received gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) between January 2010 and March 2015. Patients who were confirmed to have perforation were classified into surgery and nonsurgery groups. We aimed to determine the risk factors for surgery in patients who developed iatrogenic gastric perforations. Results. A total of 1183 patients underwent ER. Perforation occurred in 69 (5.8%) patients, and 9 patients (0.8%) required surgery to manage the perforation. In univariate analysis, anterior location of the lesion, a subepithelial lesion, two or more postprocedure pain killers within 24 hrs, and increased heart rate within 24 hrs after the procedure were the factors related to surgery. In logistic regression analysis, the location of the lesion at the anterior wall and using two or more postprocedure pain killers within 24 hrs were risk factors for surgery. Conclusion. Most cases of perforations after ER can be managed conservatively. When a patient requires two or more postprocedure pain killers within 24 hrs and the lesion is located on the anterior wall, early surgery should be considered instead of conservative management.

Complication of endoscopic tattooing: a case report of covered perforation

AIM

Laparoscopy is considered a good approach in treatment of colorectal neoplastic diseases; the endoscopic tattooing is then recommended (Evidence Level III and grade of recommendation A) to mark a lesion or a polypectomy site for intraoperative identification. We describe the case of perforation after tattoing treated conservatively.

CASE REPORT

63 years old woman, underwent colonoscopy for lipoma tattooing with India ink SPOT® solution kit and saline test. Immediately after the procedure the patient has been referred the appearance of colic epi-mesogastric pain and fever; Computed Tomography (CT) without MDC identified an irregular thickening of transverse colon with some microbubbles compatible with focal peritonitis. Initial paralytic ileus was present too. The blood count and metabolic panel examinations reveal a neutrophil leucocytosis (WBC: 11.000/mmc, 80% neutrophils).

RESULTS

On the base of WSES sepsis severity score and recent literature patient was treated conservatively with total parenteral nutrition, and intravenous antibiotic therapy. After the resolution of fever and reactivation of peristalsis. The discharge occurred after six days with no early complications.

CONCLUSION

India ink tattooing with SPOT® solution kit and saline test represent the first choice. It is a feasible technique although perforation is a possible complication. It may need an immediately surgical operation but in most cases a conservative management is a good and safe tool even if surgery may be attempted too.

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.

Successful endoscopic closure of a colonic perforation one day after endoscopic mucosal resection of a lesion in the transverse colon

A 73-year-old man underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of a 20-mm flat elevated lesion on the transverse colon. The morning after the procedure, he started to have severe right upper quadrant pain after his first meal. A computed tomography scan revealed free air and a stomach filled with food. He was diagnosed to have delayed post-EMR intestinal perforation. He underwent emergent colonoscopy and clipping of the perforated site. He was discharged 8 d after the endoscopic closure without the need for surgical intervention. The meal was not the cause of the colon transversum perforation.

Pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pneumoperitoneum and extensive subcutaneous emphysema resulting from endoscopic mucosal resection secondary to colonoscopy: A case report

Rectal perforation is an unusual complication of therapeutic colonoscopy. The present study reports the case of a patient with a rare manifestation of pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pneumoperitoneum and extensive subcutaneous emphysema that resulted from an endoscopic mucosal resection following a colonoscopy of the rectum. Only 3 cases of colonic perforation and 1 case of rectal perforation have been described previously, of which the clinical diagnoses and treatments were varied, and no results of follow-up studies were reported. In the present study, dyspnea and neck swelling were acute signs of extraluminal air that resulted from rectal perforation. Computed axial tomography was an effective diagnosis method, and is recommended for the early recognition of colorectal perforation. Appropriate management and a close follow-up are crucial for optimal results.

Optimal Methods for the Management of Iatrogenic Colonoscopic Perforation

Background/Aims:

Colonoscopic perforations have been managed with exploratory laparotomy, and have resulted in some morbidity and mortality. Recently, laparoscopic surgery is commonly performed for this purpose. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of several management strategies for iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had been treated for colonoscopic perforation between January 2004 and April 2013 at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea.

Results:

A total of 41 patients with colonoscopic perforation were enrolled. Twenty patients underwent conservative management with a success rate of 90%. Surgical management was performed in 23 patients including two patients who were converted to surgical management after the failure of the initial conservative management. Among 14 patients who underwent surgery at 8 hours after the perforation, there was no considerable difference in adverse outcomes between the laparotomy group and the laparoscopic surgery group. The medical costs and claim rate were 1.45 and 1.87 times greater in the exploratory laparotomy group, respectively.

Conclusions:

Conservative management of colonoscopic perforation could be an option for patients without overt symptoms of peritonitis or with a small defect size. If surgical management is required, laparoscopic surgery may be considered as the initial procedure even with a delayed diagnosis.

Conservative Management of Large Rectosigmoid Perforation under Peritoneal Reflection: Case Report and Review of the Literature

Colonoscopy is accepted as the best method in diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of colorectal diseases. As the amount of the usage of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy rises, iatrogenic complications are more likely to be seen. The most important complications are perforations and bleeding. Whereas perforation is a complication that is seen rarely, because of the high ratio of morbidity and mortality, it should be analyzed more carefully. There is not a common view on the optimal treatment of colonoscopic perforation. Most cases require urgent surgery, and in some cases the iatrogenic perforation of colon can be managed by conservative methods. In this report, we present a rectosigmoid perforation under peritoneal reflection and conservative management of this case.

Duodenal perforation following esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with cautery and epinephrine injection for peptic ulcer disease: An interesting case of nonoperative management in the medical intensive care unit (MICU)

INTRODUCTION

The utilization of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and related procedures continues to rise. Due to this increase in utilization is an inevitable rise in serious complications such as hemorrhage and perforation. One understudied and dreaded complication of EGD causing significant morbidity and mortality is duodenal perforation.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We present the case of a 63-year-old male who presented to our institution's emergency room with dyspepsia, melanic stools, tachycardia, and hypotension. Initial laboratory evaluation was significant for severe anemia, lactic acidosis, and acute kidney injury, while CT scan of the abdomen pelvis did not suggest retroperitoneal hematoma or bowel perforation. An emergent EGD was performed which showed multiple bleeding duodenal ulcers that were cauterized and injected with epinephrine. Post-procedure the patient developed worsening abdominal pain, distension, diaphoresis, and tachypnea, requiring emergent intubation. A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with oral contrast confirmed pneumoperitoneum and duodenal perforation.

DISCUSSION

Due to the patient's hemodynamic instability and multiple comorbidities, he was treated non-operatively with strict bowel rest and intravenous antibiotics. The patient ultimately had a 19-day hospital course complicated by renal failure requiring hemodialysis and an ischemic limb necessitating above knee amputation.

CONCLUSION

This case describes an unsuccessful attempt at nonoperative management of duodenal perforation following EGD.

Incidence, risk, management, and outcomes of iatrogenic full-thickness large bowel injury associated with 56,882 colonoscopies in 14 Lithuanian hospitals

BACKGROUND

The primary goal of this hospital-based retrospective multicenter case series study was to determine the incidence of large bowel full-thickness injury associated with colonoscopy in Lithuania. We assessed characteristics of patients who were treated as a result of this complication; management and outcomes were the secondary goals of this study.

METHODS

The medical records of patients with iatrogenic large bowel perforations resulting from colonoscopy within the period January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2011, were retrospectively reviewed. Representatives of 14 Lithuanian public and private hospitals participated in the survey.

RESULTS

A total of 56,882 colonoscopies were performed. Forty patients (23 female and 17 male patients) were reported to have iatrogenic full-thickness large bowel injury. Diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies resulted in perforation for 28 of 49,795 patients and 12 of 7,087 patients, respectively. A mean age of 70 years and a female preponderance for this complication was revealed. Sigmoid colon and rectosigmoid junction was perforated in 28 patients. All patients underwent surgical management, either primary repair (70.0 %) or bowel resection (30.0 %). Postoperative complications were diagnosed in 15 patients. Immediate treatment resulted in fewer intestinal resections and shorter hospital stays (p < 0.05). Smoking [odds ratio (OR) 14.4, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.16-179.8] and a large size perforation site (15 ± 10 vs. 8 ± 5 mm; OR 1.19, 95 % CI 1.03-1.38) were risk factors for developing a postoperative complication after curative surgery. Six patients died. All deaths were related to diagnostic colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Total incidence of large bowel full-thickness injury in Lithuanian hospitals is 0.07 %. Incidence of this complication after diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies is 0.056 and 0.169 %, respectively. The most common site of perforation is sigmoid colon and rectosigmoid junction, at 70 %. Risk rises when colonoscopy is performed in low-volume practice centers. Urgent surgical management resulted in overall mortality rate of 15.0 % and morbidity of 37.5 %.

Acute abdominal compartment syndrome complicating a colonoscopic perforation: a case report

Introduction

A perforation occurring during colonoscopy is an extremely rare complication that may be difficult to diagnose. It can be responsible for acute abdominal compartment syndrome, a potentially lethal complex pathological state in which an acute increase in intra-abdominal pressure may provoke the failure of several organ systems.

Case presentation

We report a case of acute abdominal compartment syndrome after perforation of the bowel during a colonoscopy in a 60-year-old North African man with rectal cancer, resulting in respiratory distress, cyanosis and cardiac arrest. Our patient was treated by needle decompression after the failure of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An emergency laparotomy with anterior resection, including the perforated sigmoid colon, was then performed followed by immediate anastomosis. Our patient remains alive and free of disease three years later.

Conclusion

Acute abdominal compartment syndrome is a rare disease that may occasionally occur after a colonoscopic perforation. It should be kept in mind during colonoscopy, especially considering its simple salvage treatment.