Endoscopic repair of a large colonoscopic perforation with clips

Endoscopic management of colonic perforations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We will review the current management of colonic perforations, with particular emphasis on iatrogenic perforations caused by colonoscopy, the leading etiology. We will focus on recently developed endoscopic techniques and technologies that obviate morbid emergency surgery (the standard management approach in years past).

RECENT FINDINGS

Colonic perforations are rare but potentially fatal complications of both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy resulting in death in approximately 5% of cases with the mortality increasing with delay in diagnosis and treatment. As novel endoscopic techniques and tools have flourished in recent years, our approach to management of these perforations has evolved. With the availability of newer tools such as over the scope clips, enhanced through the scope clips and novel endoscopic suturing devices, colonic perforations can be managed effectively in many or most patients without the morbidity of surgical interventions.

SUMMARY

With expanding use of colonoscopy, inadvertent outcomes such as perforations are bound to increase as well. Early diagnosis permits minimally invasive, nonsurgical, endoscopic management in most cases if the expertise and tools are available. Centers with high colonoscopy volumes including therapeutic procedures would be well served to invest in the requisite technologies and expertise.

Endoscopic closure of a postoperative rectal anastomotic leakage with hemoclips: A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Hemoclips have been used to protect leakage after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps or early-staged rectal cancer, or for perforation of the sigmoid colon during colonoscopy. However, endoscopic clips were seldom used to manage anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of rectal cancer.

CASE PRESENTATION

A patient with postoperative anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer was successfully treated by endoscopic hemoclips under colonoscopic vision after failure of conservative treatment. Postoperative course was uncomplicated and the patient was discharged from the hospital seven days later.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Endoscopic hemoclips should be considered as an alternative option for the treatment of an anastomotic leakage in cases where conservative treatment has failed. As they are safe and effective for closure, however good bowel preparation and strict inclusion criteria are required.

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.

Endoscopic management of colonic perforations: clips versus suturing closure (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Perforation during colonoscopy remains the most worrisome adverse event and usually requires urgent surgical rescue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of endoscopic closure of full-thickness colonic perforations.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients with endoscopically closed colonic perforations over the past 6 years (2009-2014). Colonic perforations were closed by using endoscopic clips or an endoscopic suturing device. Most patients were admitted for treatment with intravenous antibiotics and kept on bowel rest. If their clinical condition deteriorated, urgent surgery was performed. If patients remained stable, oral feeding was resumed, and patients were discharged with subsequent clinical and endoscopic follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients had iatrogenic colonic perforations closed with an endoscopic suturing device or endoscopic clips during the study period. Primary closure of a colonic perforation was performed with endoscopic clips in 5 patients and sutured with an endoscopic suturing device in 16 patients. All 5 patients after clip closure had worsening of abdominal pain and required laparoscopy (4 patients) or rescue colonoscopy with endoscopic suturing closure (1 patient). Two patients had abdominal pain after endoscopic suturing closure, but diagnostic laparoscopy confirmed complete and adequate endoscopic closure of the perforations. The other 15 patients did not require any rescue surgery or laparoscopy after endoscopic suturing. The main limitation of our study is its retrospective, single-center design and relatively small number of patients.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic suturing closure of colonic perforations is technically feasible, eliminates the need for rescue surgery, and appears more effective than closure with hemostatic endoscopic clips.

Endoscopic Treatment of Gastrointestinal Perforations, Leaks, and Fistulae

Gastrointestinal leaks and fistulae are common postoperative complications, whereas intestinal perforation more commonly complicates advanced endoscopic procedures. Although these complications have classically been managed surgically, there exists an ever-expanding role for endoscopic therapy and the involvement of advanced endoscopists as part of a multidisciplinary team including surgeons and interventional radiologists. This review will serve to highlight the innovative endoscopic interventions that provide an expanding range of viable endoscopic approaches to the management and therapy of gastrointestinal perforation, leaks, and fistulae.

Endoscopic clips for the closure of acute iatrogenic perforations: Where do we stand?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Iatrogenic perforation of the gut during endoscopy remains an uncommon but critical complication with significant morbidity and probable mortality than usual surgical treatment. Some authors have adopted a non-surgical closure method in chosen cases and, since 1993, endoclips have been used to close perforation in the stomach. The endoscopic practice of endoclips has been commonly used in the gut for hemostasis. Currently, the use of endoscopic techniques is increasing for the closure of endoscopic submucosal dissection or endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopic perforations that improved with endoscopic closure in the literature prior to 2008 have been previously described. In the present article, we present a descriptive review of cases with iatrogenic perforation in the gut treated with endoclips between 2008 and 2014.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature screening and a systematic review using PubMed and Medline was done for all reports published between January 2008 and December 2014 using the endoclip technique in the closure of iatrogenic perforations.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies published between 2008 and 2014 using endoclips for the closure of iatrogenic perforations of the gut (nine esophagus, 11 stomach, 15 duodenum, 12 colon and rectum) were found. All studies were explained briefly and summarized in a table.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence to show the efficacy of endoclips in the management of iatrogenic perforations, especially when recognized early. Limitations of endoclipping such as inefficiency against large perforations may be overcome by improving novel techniques in the future.

Endoscopic closure of colonic fistulas in colon cancer patients using a combination of hemoclips and endoloops: two case reports

Chronic colon fistulas, which commonly result from operative complications, are generally managed surgically. We present an endoscopic technique of fistula closure that involves the combined use of hemoclips and endoloops. Two consecutive patients with colonic fistulas that were refractory to conservative treatment were successfully managed with this new endoluminal technique. This minimally invasive treatment modality affords accurate localization of the fistula orifice and results in a low mortality and morbidity rates.

Endoscopic clip closure of gastrointestinal perforations, fistulae, and leaks

Development of endoscopic devices to close perforations has certainly revolutionized endoscopy. Immediate closure of perforations eliminates the need for surgery, which allows us to push the limits of endoscopic surgery from the mucosal plane to deep submucosal layers and eventually transmurally. The present article focuses on endoscopic closure devices, closure techniques, followed by a review of animal and clinical studies on endoscopic closure of perforations.

Clinical outcomes and direct costings of endoluminal clipping compared to surgery in the management of iatrogenic colonic perforation

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes and costs of endoluminal clipping and surgery in the management of iatrogenic colonic perforation.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center, clinical and economic analysis of outcomes and costings between endoluminal clipping and surgery in consecutive cases of iatrogenic colonic perforations was conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 7136 colonoscopies performed over a 6-year period were complicated by 12 (0.17%) perforations. Seven cases were treated by endoscopic clipping (with a success rate of 71.4%) and five with immediate surgery. Both groups of patients had similar clinical and individual characteristics. Patients who were treated with endoscopic clipping had a shorter period of hospitalization (median 9 vs 13 days) compared to surgery, but this was not statistically significant. Compared to patients who had immediate surgery, the median direct health-care costs for all procedures (US$ 115.10 vs US$ 1479.50, P = 0.012) and investigations (US$ 124.60 vs US$ 512.90, P = 0.048) during inpatient stay were lower for the endoscopic clipping group. There was a trend towards a lower overall inpatient median cost for patients managed with endoscopic clipping compared to surgery (US$ 1481.70 vs US$ 3281.90, P = 0.073).

CONCLUSION

Endoluminal clipping may be more cost-effective than surgery in the management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

Differences in the endoscopic closure of colonic perforation due to diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the experience of a single center regarding the feasibility of endoscopic closure of iatrogenic colonic perforations and to elucidate differences between the efficacy of endoscopic clip closure due to diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective institutional computer-based search of records of colonoscopic perforation occurring between January 2004 and December 2011 was undertaken. Data on patients undergoing colonoscopy were entered into a clinical database. To further improve the detection of all cases of colon perforations, the authors also searched their separate surgical database for every patient with a colon perforation treated or operated on in the surgery department. Statistical significance was tested using either Fortran-Subroutine Fytest, chi-square testing or t-test.

RESULTS

Over 8 years, 22,924 patients underwent colonoscopy, of which 105 consecutive patients suffered iatrogenic perforation. Clip application was possible in 62 patients (81.58%) after perforation due to a therapeutic colonoscopy, whereas clip application was only possible in 9 patients (31.03%) after perforation due to a diagnostic colonoscopy. 4 out of 9 patients (44.44%) in the diagnostic group compared with 7 out of 62 patients (11.29%) after clipping a perforation during a therapeutic colonoscopy were sent to surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' data indicate significant differences in the potential for and success of endoscopic closure of iatrogenic perforations occurring during diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy. The frequency of surgery was significantly greater after clipping a perforation during a diagnostic colonoscopy.

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.

Colonoscopic perforation: useful parameters for early diagnosis and conservative treatment

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to determine useful parameters for the early diagnosis of colonoscopic perforation and to select those who would require surgical treatment.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the demographics, clinical and colonoscopic data, diagnostic-surgical interval, operative findings, complications, and hospital stay of patients who developed postcolonoscopy iatrogenic colonic perforation between January 2002 and December 2008.

RESULTS

A retrospective multicentric study of patients diagnosed of colonoscopic perforation was performed. Fifty-four patients were found for final analysis (mean age, 71 years (26-91 years). Thirty-four were diagnostic and 20 were therapeutic colonoscopies. Most patients in whom the perforation was noticed during colonoscopy were treated surgically (p = 0.032) within 24 h (p = 0.004) and had a lesser degree of surgical peritonitis (p = 0.033). Those with deficient bowel preparation had more interventions (p < 0.05), ostomies (p = 0.015), and complications (p = 0.023) as well as major clinical (p < 0.001) and surgical peritonitis (p = 0.031). Patients with nonoperative management had fewer complications (p = 0.011) and lower hospital stay (p < 0.048). Surgical treatment within 24 h resulted in a lesser degree of surgical peritonitis (p < 0.001), fewer intestinal resections (p < 0.001), ostomies (p = 0.002) and complications (p < 0.047), and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend a conservative treatment for patients with the following conditions: good general health, unnoticed perforation during endoscopy, early diagnosis, no signs of diffuse peritonitis, proper colonic preparation, and a different injury mechanism to traction. Patients treated surgically after the first 24 h are likely to have a greater degree of peritonitis and more intestinal resections, ostomies, and complications.

Feasibility of endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic colon perforation occurring during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colon perforation is one of the most dreaded complications of colonoscopy. Traditionally, patients with a colon perforation have been treated surgically. Although there are several case reports documenting the usefulness of endoscopic closure of colon perforations, there are few current data evaluating the feasibility of endoscopic closure for an iatrogenic perforation on consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of colon perforations and the utility of immediate endoscopic closure during colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent colonoscopy at 1 institution from June 2002 to December 2008 were identified.

INTERVENTION

An attempt at immediate colon perforation closure by endoscopic means.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Successful endoscopic closure of colon perforation.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 8601 colonoscopies were performed (2472 therapeutic interventions, 28.7%). A total of 12 iatrogenic colon perforations occurred, yielding a rate of 1.4/1000. Five (41.7%) occurred during a diagnostic colonoscopy (0.8/1000), and 7 perforations (58.3%) occurred as the result of a therapeutic intervention (2.8/1000). Endoscopic closure of the perforation site was possible in 5 patients (42%). Seven patients were treated surgically (large defects [n = 3], including 1 failed endoscopic closure, difficult endoscope position [n = 2], stool contamination [n = 1], and endoscopist's inexperience with closure of mucosal defects [n = 1]).

LIMITATION

Retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the incidence of colon perforations was 1.4/1000. Endoscopic closure of iatrogenic colon perforations was attempted in 50% of patients and was successful in 83%. All patients with successful endoscopic closure had lesions smaller than 10 mm.

Colonic perforation in collagenous colitis: a systematic review of a rare complication and guidance on management

OBJECTIVE

Collagenous colitis is an increasingly diagnosed clinical and pathological variant of microscopic colitis, mainly affecting middle-aged and elderly women; herein we review the literature for a rare complication (colonic perforation) and the most appropriate management.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE and abstracts from major gastroenterological congresses were searched in addition to hand-searching of electronic journals. Ten case reports and short series were identified as relevant to this study, and full papers of all these articles were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 30 cases were recorded (28 female; age range 37-86 years, median 66 years). Colonic perforation was reported in 21 cases, mainly following colonoscopy (15 cases) or barium enema (4 cases). The site of colonic perforation/tears was predominantly right sided (17 cases). These cases were managed differently in different series, and none of the collagenous colitis-related colonic perforations that were treated conservatively (n = 5), or with diagnostic laparotomy but no colonic resection (n = 2), required further surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative management of collagenous colitis-related perforation seems to be an appropriate initial approach. However, diagnosis of collagenous colitis is usually retrospective in colonic perforations related to endoscopy or barium enema, i.e. when the histology results are available, and it seems difficult to provide a management plan specific to these patients in the clinical setting. Therefore general guidelines for management of all colonoscopy- and barium enema-related perforation are required. When perforation occurs in an otherwise intact colon, diagnostic laparoscopy can be considered as appropriate initial management.

Laparoscopic repair of colonoscopic perforation: a new standard?

BACKGROUND

Scientific evidence demonstrating interest in the laparoscopic approach for surgical repair of colonoscopic perforations is still lacking. The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of 43 patients who suffered from colonic perforations after colonoscopy between 1989 and 2008 in two tertiary centers in order to compare the results of the laparoscopic and the open approaches to repair.

METHODS

The patients' demographic data, perforation location, therapy, and outcome were recorded from the medical charts. Forty-two patients were managed operatively (19 laparoscopies and 23 laparotomies). In three patients who underwent explorative laparoscopy, the procedure had to be converted to laparotomy due to surgical difficulties. The patients who underwent laparotomy management had a longer period between the colonoscopy and the surgery (P=0.056) and more stercoral contaminations.

RESULTS

The mean hospital stay was shorter for the laparoscopy group (P=0.02), which had fewer postoperative complications (P=0.01) and no mortality (NS).

CONCLUSION

This series demonstrates that early laparoscopic management of colonoscopic perforation is safe. Laparoscopic management may lead to reduced surgical and psychological stress for the patient because of its low morbidity and mortality rates and shorter hospital stay. However, the procedure should be converted to a laparotomy if necessary.

[Large iatrogenic colonic perforation treated by endoscopic suturing]

Perforation of the colon during colonoscopy is still one of the most severe complications of this technique and occurs with a frequency of between 0.12 % and 0.2 % of cases after diagnostic colonoscopy and in up to 3 % of patients after therapeutic colonoscopy. The site of perforation is usually the sigmoid colon. The gold standard for treatment of this complication is surgery to be performed as rapidly as possible: a simple suture and peritoneal cleaning, with limited resection and anastomosis or colostomy only in case of confirmed fecal peritonitis. However, interventional endoscopy has made progress, in particular endoscopic suturing and Natural Orifice Transluminal Endocopic Surgery (NOTES) has been developed. There are several reports of endoscopically sutured perforated colons, most less than 10mm. We report our experience of two colonic perforations which were at least 10mm treated by endoscopic suturing with hemoclips: a perforated sigmoid diverticulum during simple colonoscopy in the first case and a large polypectomy by endoscopic mucosal resection of the ascending colon in the second.

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery used for perforated viscus repair is feasible using lower peritoneal pressures than laparoscopy in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

Procedure-related complications contribute to 1-year mortality in patients with perforated ulcers. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) might offer a new repair approach.

STUDY DESIGN

Swine were randomized to laparoscopic or NOTES repair. Laparoscopic gastrotomy creation (1 cm) was followed by 4 hours soilage time. After peritoneal cavity irrigation (per group assignment), repair proceeded with a laparoscopic or NOTES approach. For NOTES repair, omentum was endoscopically grasped, pulled into the gastric lumen, and fixed with metallic clips. Feasibility; time to complete procedures; pneumoperitoneal pressures; and clinical parameters, including necropsy and peritoneal culture at 2 weeks, were recorded.

RESULTS

NOTES repair failed in 1 animal (technical); repair was completed laparoscopically, and data were analyzed as intention to treat. Specific NOTES repair time (minutes) was comparable with laparoscopy (36 versus 46; p = 0.2). Mean abdominal pressure (mmHg) required to complete NOTES repair was lower than in laparoscopy (4 versus 12; p < 0.001). Nineteen of 23 animals thrived until necropsy at 2 weeks. Three animals succumbed to airway compromise in recovery; 1 NOTES animal failed to thrive on postoperative day 7. No intra-abdominal cause for these deaths was found. At necropsy all repairs were intact, and peritoneal cultures revealed a small and equivalent amount of colony-forming units in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ulcer repair appears technically feasible with similar clinical and infectious outcomes to laparoscopy. The lower required pneumoperitoneal pressures used in these NOTES techniques are recognizable different outcomes from laparoscopy and can be advantageous in critically ill patients.

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.