Endoscopic clip closure versus surgery for the treatment of iatrogenic colon perforations developed during diagnostic colonoscopy: a review of 115,285 patients

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 Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Endoscopic suturing and clipping devices for defects in the GI tract

Gastrointestinal luminal defects, including perforations, leaks and fistulae, pose persistent obstacles in endoscopic therapeutic interventions. A variety of endoscopic approaches have been proposed, with through-the-scope clipping (TTSC), over-the-scope clipping (OTSC) and suturing representing the main techniques of tissue apposition. However, the heterogeneity in defect morphology, the technical particularities of different locations in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and the impact of various parameters on the final outcome, do not allow distinct conclusions and recommendations on the optimal approaches for defect closure, and, thus, current practice is based on endoscopists experience and local availability of devices. This review aims to collect the existing evidence on tissue apposition devices, in order to outline the role of every device on specific indications.

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.

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.

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.

Current endoscopic closure techniques for the management of gastrointestinal perforations

Acute gastrointestinal perforations occur either from spontaneous or iatrogenic causes. However, particular attention should be made in acute iatrogenic perforations as timely diagnosis and endoscopic closure prevent morbidity and mortality. With the increasing use of diagnostic endoscopy and advances in therapeutic endoscopy worldwide, the endoscopist must be able to recognize and manage perforations. Depending on the size and location of the defect, a variety of endoscopic clips, stents, and suturing devices are available. This review aims to prepare and guide the endoscopist to use the right tools and techniques for optimal patient outcomes.

Outcomes of Deep Mural Injury After Endoscopic Resection: An International Cohort of 3717 Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although perforation is the most feared adverse event associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), limited data exists concerning its management. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of intra-procedural deep mural injury (DMI) in an international multi-center observational cohort of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent EMR for a LNPCP ≥20 mm were evaluated. Significant DMI (S-DMI) was defined as Sydney DMI Classification type III (muscularis propria injury, target sign) or type IV/V (perforation without or with contamination, respectively). The primary outcome was successful S-DMI defect closure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (removal of all visible polypoid tissue during index EMR), surgical referral and recurrence at first surveillance colonscopy (SC1).

RESULTS

Between July 2008 to May 2020, 3717 LNPCPs underwent EMR. Median lesion size was 35mm (interquartile range (IQR) 25 to 45mm). Significant DMI was identified in 101 cases (2.7%), with successful defect closure in 98 (97.0%) using a median of 4 through-the-scope clips (TTSCs; IQR 3 to 6 TTSCs). Three (3.0%) patients underwent S-DMI-related urgent surgery. Technical success was achieved in 94 (93.1%) patients, with 46 (45.5%) admitted to hospital (median duration 1 day; IQR 1 to 2 days). Comparing LNPCPs with and without S-DMI, no differences in technical success (94 (93.1%) vs 3316 (91.7%); P = .62) or SC1 recurrence (12 (20.0%) vs 363 (13.6%); P = .15) were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant DMI is readily managed endoscopically and does not appear to affect technical success or recurrence.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of iatrogenic colonic perforation related to diagnostic vs. therapeutic colonoscopy

Aim

Iatrogenic colonic perforation (ICP) is a rare serious complication of colonoscopy, where standard treatment is controversial. This study aimed to characterize diagnostic ICP (DICP) compared to therapeutic ICP (TICP) and determine the possible indication of endoscopic repair.

Methods

We studied patients with ICP over 7 years starting in 2011. Their demographics and data regarding perforation, treatment, and outcome were investigated by retrospective review of medical records, and the diagnostic and therapeutic groups were compared.

Results

Among 29,882 patients who underwent colonoscopy, ICP was identified in 28 (0.09%: diagnostic, 15/24,758, 0.06%; therapeutic, 13/5124, 0.25%). A total of 56 patients (33 DICP and 23 TICP) including 28 referred cases were analyzed. Mean age was 62.3 ± 11.4 years, and 24 were men. Perforations occurred mostly in the rectosigmoid region and half were detected during or immediately after colonoscopy. Endoscopic treatment was successful in 22 cases and 34 required surgery. Mortality occurred in 4 (7.1%).

Compared to TICP, DICP was more prevalent in females and rectosigmoid region and more frequently detected immediately (all p < 0.05); DICP tended to occur in older patients, be larger and have better chance of endoscopic repair.

Regardless of type of ICP, female predominance, smaller perforation, more frequent immediate detection, and shorter hospital stay (all p = 0.01) were found in the endoscopic repair group.

Conclusion

DICP was more frequent in the rectosigmoid area in older women and could be detected immediately. Immediate detection and small perforation size could be important factors for endoscopic repair. Careful attention and gentle manipulation should be required.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

Successful colonoscopic removal of a foreign body that caused sigmoid colon perforation: a case report

Large bowel perforation is an acute abdominal emergency requiring rapid diagnosis for proper treatment. The high mortality rate associated with large bowel perforation underlines the importance of an accurate and timely diagnosis. Computed tomography is useful for diagnosis of ingested foreign bodies, and endoscopic repair using clips can be an effective treatment of colon perforations. We herein describe a 78-year-old man with sigmoid colon perforation caused by accidental swallowing of a jujube pit. The jujube pit had become stuck in the wall of the sigmoid colon and was successfully removed by colonoscopy, avoiding an aggressive surgery. As a result of developments in endoscopic techniques, endoscopic closure has become a feasible option for the management of intestinal perforation.

Gastrointestinal tract injuries after thermal ablative therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) represent the standard of care for patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are unfit for surgery. The incidence of reported adverse events is low, ranging from 2.4% to 13.1% for RFA and from 2.6% to 7.5% for MWA. Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) injury is even more infrequent (0.11%), but usually requires surgery with an unfavourable prognosis. Due to its low incidence and the retrospective nature of the studies, the literature reporting this feared complication is heterogeneous and in many cases lacks information on tumour characteristics, comorbidities and treatment approaches.

CASE SUMMARY

A 77-year-old man who had undergone extended right hepatectomy for HCC was diagnosed with early disease recurrence with a small nodule compatible with HCC in the Sg4b segment of the liver with a subcapsular location. He was treated with percutaneous RFA and a few week later he was urgently admitted to the Surgery ward for abdominal pain and fever. A subcutaneous abscess was diagnosed and treated by percutaneous drainage. A fistulous tract was then documented by the passage of contrast material from the gastric antrum to the abdominal wall. The oesophagogastroduodenoscopy confirmed a circular wall defect at the lesser curvature of gastric antrum, leading directly to the purulent abdominal collection. An over-the-scope clip (OTSC) was used to successfully close the defect.

CONCLUSION

This is the first reported case of RFA-related GIT injury to have been successfully treated with an OTSC, which highlights the role of this endoscopic treatment for the management of this complication.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for repairing colonoscopic perforation: a multicenter study

PURPOSE

We conducted this study to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) vs. open surgery (OS) for repairing colonoscopic perforation, and to evaluate the possible predictors of complications.

METHOD

We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent surgical repair of colonoscopic perforation by LS or OS between January 2005 and June 2019 at six Hallym University-affiliated hospitals. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify the predictors of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Of the total 99 patients, 40 underwent OS and 59 underwent LS. The postoperative hospital stay and the time to resuming a soft diet were shorter in the LS group than in the OS group (P = 0.017 and 0.026, respectively). The complication rate and Clavien-Dindo classification were not significantly different between the two groups. Multivariable analysis revealed that an American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) ≥ 3 and switching from non-operative management to surgical treatment were independently associated with complications (P = 0.025 and 0.010, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LS may be a safe alternative to OS for repairing colonoscopic perforation with a shorter postoperative hospital stay and time to resuming a soft diet. Patients with an ASA score ≥ 3 and those with changes to their planned treatment should be monitored carefully to minimize their risk of complications.

Endoscopic Management of the Ascending Colon Perforation Secondary to a Rare-Earth Magnets Ingestion in a Pediatric Patient

Rare magnets (neodymium magnets) are high-powered magnets known to cause intestinal perforation if the intestinal mucosa is trapped in between 2 or several magnets. A bowel perforation in pediatric patients secondary to magnets is usually managed with a surgical intervention that might require enterectomy. We report a case of an 11-year-old boy who presented with abdominal pain and a finding on abdominal x-ray of radiopaque foreign bodies located in the ascending colon. He underwent colonoscopy with a finding of embedded magnets with a colonic perforation. The colonoscopy revealed embedded magnets in the colonic mucosa that were colonoscopically removed, and then, the perforated site was successfully managed with endoclipping of the perforation site in the ascending colon.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: an update on tools and accessories

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive therapeutic procedure to remove larger polyps or early non-metastatic lesions. It has long been used in Asia, but is now fast growing in popularity in the West. There are multiple challenges faced by ESD practitioners. While the practice of ESD in gastric lesions is relatively well established, the oesophagus with its narrow lumen and challenging workspace, and the colon with its tortuous course and folds are more challenging frontiers. The nature of performing a procedure endoscopically means that conventional methods offer no mechanism for providing counter-traction while performing dissection, impeding visibility and increasing the rate of complications. There are a multitude of tools available to those performing ESD for the different stages of the procedure. This article reviews the accessories currently used in regular ESD practice including the knives used to cut and dissect lesions, the cap and hood devices used to improve visibility and safety, injection fluids to lift the submucosal plane, haemostatic devices, generators, and finally, emerging traction apparatus. There is some evidence behind the use of these tools, however, ESD remains the domain of a small number of practitioners and the practice relies heavily on expert experience. Evolution of the ESD toolbox will make the procedure more accessible to more endoscopists, which in turn will drive the development of a more substantial evidence base to evaluate efficacy and safety of the multitude of tools.

Over-the-scope clip management of non-acute, full-thickness gastrointestinal defects

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic management of full-thickness gastrointestinal tract defects (FTGID) has become an attractive management strategy, as it avoids the morbidity of surgery. We have previously described the short-term outcomes of over-the-scope clip management of 22 patients with non-acute FTGID. This study updates our prior findings with a larger sample size and longer follow-up period.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted. All patients undergoing over-the-scope clip management of FTGID between 2013 and 2019 were identified. Acute perforations immediately managed and FTGID requiring endoscopic suturing were excluded. Patient demographics, endoscopic adjunct therapies, number of endoscopic interventions, and need for operative management were evaluated. Success was strictly defined as complete FTGID closure.

RESULTS

We identified 92 patients with 117 FTGID (65 fistulae and 52 leaks); 27.2% had more than one FTGID managed simultaneously. The OTSC device (Ovesco Endoscopy, Tubingen, Germany) was utilized in all cases. Additional closure attempts were required in 22.2% of defects. With a median follow-up period of 5.5 months, overall defect closure success rate was 66.1% (55.0% fistulae vs. 79.6% leaks, p = 0.007). There were four mortalities from causes unrelated to the FTGID. Only 14.9% of patients with FTGID underwent operative management. There were no complications related to endoscopic intervention and no patients required urgent surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Over-the-scope clip management of FTGID represents a safe alternative to potentially morbid operative intervention. When strictly defining success as complete closure of all FTGID, endoscopy was successful in 64.4% of patients with only a small minority of patients ultimately requiring surgery.

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

Introduction

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

Aim

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

Material and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

Endoscopic closure of iatrogenic colon perforation using dual-channel endoscope with an endoloop and clips: methods and feasibility data (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Colon perforation is the most serious complication associated with colonoscopic procedures. We performed a novel purse-string suture technique to close the iatrogenic colonic perforation using dual-channel endoscope with an endoloop and clips.

METHODS

Iatrogenic colon perforations developed during diagnostic colonoscopy referred to a tertiary hospital over 10 years were considered for this endoscopic closure. An endoloop was inserted through the left channel of the endoscope and placed around the defect. The first clip was placed at the proximal site of the defect through the other channel of the endoscope, and the endoloop was anchored on the mucosa around the defect. Then, subsequent clips were placed next to previous clips and the endoloop was fixed. After the defect was encircled by the endoloop and clips, the rim of the opening was approximated by fastening the endoloop with a purse-string technique.

RESULTS

A total of 8 patients were admitted to our hospital because of iatrogenic colon perforations during diagnostic colonoscopy. Of these, 2 underwent laparoscopic surgery and 6 underwent endoscopic closure by this novel purse-string suture technique. The estimated diameters of the perforations were 20 mm. All cases were successfully treated in the endoscopy unit without sedation or general anesthesia, and recovered without any complication or subsequent operation. Abdominal pain had nearly resolved within 3 days after the procedure in all patients, and only mild peritonitis was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Iatrogenic colon perforation can be treated with a purse-string suture technique using dual-channel endoscope with an endoloop and clips. This technique can be useful for relatively large colon perforations associated with diagnostic colonoscopy.

Choosing the right through-the-scope clip: a rigorous comparison of rotatability, whip, open/close precision, and closure strength (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Many new through-the-scope clips are available, and physicians often select clips based on physical characteristics and/or cost. However, functional profiles may be equally important and have not been methodically assessed. We evaluated 5 commercially available clips: Resolution 360, Instinct, Quick Clip Pro, Dura Clip, and SureClip.

METHODS

We rigorously compared clips on multiple characteristics, including rotatability, overshoot, open/close precision, and tensile/closure strength. Clips were tested in 4 different endoscope configurations: (1) straight, (2) duodenal sweep, (3) full retroflexion, and (4) across the duodenoscope elevator.

RESULTS

For rotatability, the Resolution 360 was the fastest due to its unique functionality in allowing primary MD control in rotation (P < .05). The Resolution 360, SureClip, and Dura Clip were able to rotate through the prescribed sequence across all scope configurations. For overshoot, the SureClip and Resolution 360 had the least overshoot for the straight configuration at 0%. All clips had >75% overshoot at more strained configurations. For open/close precision, the SureClip and Dura Clip showed precise opening/closing with the ability to stop at any point. The remaining clips exhibited abrupt opening with more controlled closure. For tensile strength, the Quick Clip Pro generated the highest peak force as would be required in lateral tissue manipulation (4.8 lb, P < .005). For closure strength, the Instinct overall showed the most gel compression, and along with the Resolution 360, showed 100% deployment success for all gel tissue thicknesses (up to 10 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Each clip has a unique physical and functional profile, which may be a factor in selection depending on the clinical circumstance.

Managing a Colonoscopic Perforation in a Patient with No Abdominal Wall

We describe the case of a 37-year-old gentleman with Crohn's disease and a complex surgical history including a giant incisional hernia with no abdominal wall. He presented on a Sunday to the general surgical on-call with a four-day history of generalised abdominal pain, nausea, and decreased stoma output following colonoscopy. After CT imaging, he was diagnosed with a large colonic perforation. Initially, he was worked up for theatre but following early senior input, a conservative approach with antibiotics was adopted. The patient improved significantly and is currently awaiting plastic surgery input for the management of his abdominal wall defect.

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.

Emergency cases following elective colonoscopy: Iatrogenic colonic perforation

Objective

Our aim in this study was to present the cases of our patients who contracted colonic perforation during elective colonoscopy and became emergency cases; we also discuss treatment modalities along with literature reports on the subject.

Material and Methods

Cases of patients who contracted iatrogenic colonic perforation following endoscopy of the colorectal system between January 2009 and December 2015 at Kartal Koşuyolu Yüksek İhtisas Training and Research Hospital's Endoscopy Unit were reviewed retrospectively.

Results

Within the duration of the study, 5.586 patients underwent colonoscopies at our hospital; 7 (0.12%) of these patients contracted iatrogenic colonic perforation. Three (42.8%) of these patients were male, four (57.2%) were female, and their mean age was 69 years (46 to 84). Six (85.7%) patients were diagnosed intraoperationally, while one (14.3%) patient was diagnosed 12 hours after the procedure. The perforation area was the sigmoid colon in six patients and the ascending colon in one patient; all patients underwent surgery. Four patients were discharged with no complications. One of the remaining three patients had enterocutaneous fistula, one had acute renal failure, and one died of sepsis.

Conclusion

The progress of perforation due to colonoscopy varies according to the underlying diseases, the mechanism of perforation formation, the treatment modality used, and the experience of the physicians treating the patient. Special attention should be paid to senior and comorbid patients receiving therapeutic procedures during colonoscopy.

Efficacy of the Over-the-Scope Clip System for Treatment of Gastrointestinal Fistulas, Leaks, and Perforations: A Korean Multi-Center Study

Background/Aims

Currently, a new over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system has been introduced. This system has been used for gastrointestinal perforations and fistulas in other countries. The aim of our study is to examine the therapeutic success rate of endoscopic treatment using the OTSC system in Korea.

Methods

This was a multicenter prospective study. A total of seven endoscopists at seven centers performed this procedure.

Results

A total of 19 patients were included, with gastrointestinal leakages from anastomosis sites, fistulas, or esophageal perforations due to Boerhaave’s syndrome. Among these, there were three gastrojejunostomy sites, three esophagojejunostomy sites, four esophagogastrostomy sites, one esophagocolonostomy site, one jejuno-jejunal site, two endoscopic full thickness resection site closures, one Boerhaave’s syndrome, two esophago-bronchial fistulas, one gastrocolonic fistula, and one colonopseudocyst fistula. The size of the leakage ranged from 5 to 30 mm. The median procedure time was 16 min. All cases were technically successful. Complete closure of the leak was achieved in 14 of 19 patients using OTSC alone.

Conclusions

The OTSC system is a safe and effective method for the management of gastrointestinal leakage, especially in cases of anastomotic leakage after surgery.

Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) reduces surgery rate in the management of iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforations

Background and study aims Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been recently used in management of gastrointestinal perforations, but data on it are still limited. The aim of this study was to compare management of iatrogenic perforations before and after the OTSC was available in our endoscopy unit. Patients and methods We conducted a monocentric retrospective study from June 2007 to June 2015. All iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforations detected during endoscopy were included. Two time periods were compared in terms of surgery and mortality rates: before use of OTSC (June 2007 to June 2011) and after OTSC became available (June 2011 to June 2015). Results During the first period, 24 perforations were recorded. Fifteen (62.5 %) were managed with surgery. The mortality rate was 8 %. During the second period, 16 perforations occurred. In 11 patients (68.7 %), an OTSC was used to close the perforation, with complete sealing of the perforation in 100 % of cases. However, 2 patients with sigmoid perforation had to undergo surgery due to right ureteral obstruction by the clip in 1 case and to presence of a localized peritonitis in the other. The surgery rate during this period was 12.5 % (2 /16), with a statistically significant difference compared to the first period (P = 0.002). There was no mortality in the second period versus 8 % in the first one (P = 0.23). Conclusions OTSC is effective for endoluminal closure of iatrogenic perforations and results in a significant decrease in surgery rate.

Endoscopic repair of rectal perforation due to colonoscopy with a clamp method

Colon perforation during colonoscopy is a rare complication that usually requires surgical intervention. Traditionally, primary repair by laparoscopy, laparotomy, resection, and anastomosis is performed for such perforations. More recently developed minimally invasive endoscopic instruments have also been used in the repair of these perforations; this is becoming increasingly common. An endoscopic over-the-scope clip clamp was used in a 59-year-old male patient who suffered a rectum perforation in connection with a diagnostic colonoscopy. He was referred to our clinic. A colonoscopy was performed in our clinic to assess the rectal perforation caused by a diagnostic colonoscopy 2 h after the initial colonoscopy, with the concurrent therapeutic purpose of repairing the perforation using an endoscopic clamping method. Oral feeding was started 24 h after the procedure. After three days, the patient was discharged. An endoscopic clamping method in appropriate cases can be a safe and appropriate alternative therapy in the management of colonoscopic perforations.

Endoscopic closure instead of surgery to close an ileal pouch fistula with the over-the-scope clip system

An ileal pouch fistula is an uncommon complication after an ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Most patients who suffer from an ileal pouch fistula will need surgical intervention. However, the surgery can be invasive and has a high risk compared to endoscopic treatment. The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system was initially developed for hemostasis and leakage closure in the gastrointestinal tract during flexible endoscopy. There have been many successes in using this approach to apply perforations to the upper gastrointestinal tract. However, this approach has not been used for ileal pouch fistulas until currently. In this report, we describe one patient who suffered a leak from the tip of the “J” pouch and was successfully treated with endoscopic closure via the OTSC system. A 26-year-old male patient had an intestinal fistula at the tip of the “J” pouch after an ileal pouch anal anastomosis procedure. He received endoscopic treatment via OTSC under intravenous anesthesia, and the leak was closed successfully. Endoscopic closure of a pouch fistula could be a simpler alternative to surgery and could help avoid surgery-related complications.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for the treatment of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforations (ICP) are a rare but severe complication of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the operative and post-operative outcomes of laparoscopy vs. open surgery performed for the management of ICP.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out on Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus databases from January 1990 to June 2016. Clinical studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgical procedures for the treatment for ICP were retrieved and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 6 retrospective studies were selected, including 161 patients with ICP who underwent surgery. Laparoscopy was used in 55% of the patients, with a conversion rate of 10%. The meta-analysis shows that the laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly fewer post-operative complications compared to open surgery (18.2% vs. 53.5% respectively; Relative risk, RR: 0.32 [95%CI: 0.19-0.54; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%]) and shorter hospital stay (mean difference -5.35 days [95%CI: -6.94 to -3.76; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%]). No differences between the two surgical approaches were observed for postoperative mortality, need of re-intervention, and operative time.

CONCLUSION

The present study highlights the outcomes of the surgical management of an endoscopic complication that is not yet considered in clinical guidelines. Based on the current available literature, the laparoscopic approach appears to provide better outcomes in terms of postoperative complications and length of hospital stay than open surgery in the case of ICP surgical repair. However, the creation of large prospective registries of patients with ICP would be a step forward in addressing the lack of evidence concerning the surgical treatment of this endoscopic complication.

Evaluation and long-term outcomes of the different modalities used in colonic endoscopic mucosal resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has been used in western countries to remove colonic polyps for at least the last two decades. Significant experience has been accumulated and the efficacy of the method has recently been evaluated in a large meta-analysis. A number of variations to modify the technique, including knife-assisted, cap-assisted, ligation devices, and underwater EMR, have been developed in an attempt to improve outcomes. However, to date there are only limited data comparing these techniques or demonstrating the superiority of any one of them. This article reviews the current evidence on the efficacy of each of these modified techniques.

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.

Management of a large mucosal defect after duodenal endoscopic resection

Duodenal endoscopic resection is the most difficult type of endoscopic treatment in the gastrointestinal tract (GI) and is technically challenging because of anatomical specificities. In addition to these technical difficulties, this procedure is associated with a significantly higher rate of complication than endoscopic treatment in other parts of the GI tract. Postoperative delayed perforation and bleeding are hazardous complications, and emergency surgical intervention is sometimes required. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to establish a management protocol for preventing serious complications. For instance, the prophylactic closure of large mucosal defects after endoscopic resection may reduce the risk of hazardous complications. However, the size of mucosal defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is relatively large compared with the size after endoscopic mucosal resection, making it impossible to achieve complete closure using only conventional clips. The over-the-scope clip and polyglycolic acid sheets with fibrin gel make it possible to close large mucosal defects after duodenal ESD. In addition to the combination of laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic resection, endoscopic full-thickness resection holds therapeutic potential for difficult duodenal lesions and may overcome the disadvantages of endoscopic resection in the near future. This review aims to summarize the complications and closure techniques of large mucosal defects and to highlight some directions for management after duodenal endoscopic treatment.

Iatrogenic Perforations During Colonoscopy In a Portuguese Population: A Study Including In and Out-Of-Hospital Procedures

INTRODUCTION

The risk of iatrogenic perforations in colonoscopy is not negligible. Experience with endoscopic closure of perforations is increasing and new devices for this purpose are being released, making endoscopy a therapeutic option. National data regarding iatrogenic perforations is scarce and the burden of iatrogenic perforations in out-hospital procedures is poorly characterized in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of iatrogenic perforations rate during colonoscopy, their characteristics, management and prognosis.

METHODS

Retrospective study of all patients with perforations secondary to in-hospital and non-hospital colonoscopies treated in a tertiary hospital between 01-01-2006 and 01-10-2014. Demographic, endoscopic, radiological and therapeutic data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-three perforations were identified, 20 occurring in colonoscopies performed in non-hospital environment (45% with therapeutic procedures) and 33 occurring in-hospital procedures (73% in therapeutic colonoscopies; representing 0.12% of all colonoscopies carried out in-hospital). Patients: male in 56%, average age of 71 years, history of previous abdominopelvic surgery in 31% and diverticulosis in 10%. Colonoscopy: elective in 93%, under deep sedation in 21%, with less than excellent/good bowel preparation in 56%. A resident was the first performer in 10 cases. Perforations: average size of 21 mm (4-130 mm), diagnosed during the procedure in 51% of cases and occurred in rectum-sigmoid transition in 58.5%. Regarding therapeutics, all patients with perforation occurring in non-hospital colonoscopies were managed by surgery. Concerning treatment of those in our unit: 2-conservative, 12-endoscopic (10 successfully), 21-surgical (including the 2 cases with failure of the endoscopic approach). Comparing endoscopic treatment (n = 10, G1) versus surgery (n = 21; G2): perforation size - 9 mm (G1) versus 28 mm (G2); perforation location - 7/10 in rectum-sigmoid (G1) versus 8/21 in rectum-sigmoid and 10/21 transverse/ascending colon/hepatic angle (G2). Morbidity: 1 infection in G1 and 13 complications in G2 (infection, hemorrhage, fistula). Mortality: no deaths in G1 and 2 deaths at 30 days due to septic shock in G2.

CONCLUSION

Perforations in colonoscopy are rare in our clinical practice. Endoscopic closure was effective, though limited to perforations found during the procedure. The mortality was relatively low and endoscopic management did not seem to worsen it. An additional effort is necessary in order to detect perforations during colonoscopy.

Large Colorectal Lesions: Evaluation and Management

In the last years, a distinctive interest has been raised on large polypoid and non-polypoid colorectal tumors, and specially on flat neoplastic lesions ≥20 mm tending to grow laterally, the so called laterally spreading tumors (LST). Real or virtual chromoendoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance should be considered for the estimation of submucosal invasion of these neoplasms. Lesions suitable for endoscopic resection are those confined to the mucosa or selected cases with submucosal invasion ≤1000 μm. Polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection remain a first-line therapy for large colorectal neoplasms, whereas endoscopic submucosal dissection in high-volume centers or surgery should be considered for large LSTs for which en bloc resection is mandatory.

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.

Endoscopic "rescue" treatment for gastrointestinal perforations, anastomotic dehiscence and fistula

Luminal perforations and anastomotic leaks of the gastrointestinal tract are life-threatening events with high morbidity and mortality. Early recognition and prompt therapy is essential for a favourable outcome. Surgery has long been considered the "gold standard" approach for these conditions; however it is associated with high re-intervention morbidity and mortality. The recent development of endoscopic techniques and devices to manage perforations, leaks and fistulae has made non-surgical treatment an attractive and reasonable alternative approach. Although endoscopic therapy is widely accepted, comparative data of the different techniques are still lacking. In this review we describe, benefits and limitations of the current options in the management of patients with perforations and leaks, in order to improve outcomes.

Colonoscopic Perforations, What is Our Experience in a Training Hospital?

The aim of this study was to describe our experience in patients treated with the diagnosis of colonoscopic perforation. A retrospective institutional computer-based search of the patients treated with the diagnosis of colonoscopic perforation between July 2009 and May 2014 was undertaken. Our study included 16 patients. In 9 (56%) patients, perforations occurred during the diagnostic colonoscopy. Snare polypectomy was the causative factor in 5 patients associated with therapeutic colonoscopy. The perforation was significantly higher in patients who underwent therapeutic colonoscopy than those had diagnostic colonoscopy (P<0.007). The sigmoid colon was the most common perforation site (62.5%). Twelve patients (75%) were treated by surgically, 3 (19%) patients by conservatively, and 1 (6%) by endoscopic clipping. Early recognition of the perforation is critical. Therefore, a high index of suspicion is essential for the prompt and accurate diagnosis.

Endoluminal Closure of Colon Perforation with Endoscopic Band Ligation: Technical Feasibility and Safety in an In Vivo Canine Model

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is an accepted method in the management of variceal bleeding; however, there is little evidence on the safety and feasibility of EBL for the closure of bowel perforation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility and efficacy of EBL in iatrogenic colon perforation by using a canine model.

METHODS

We established an iatrogenic colon perforation model by using seven beagle dogs. Longitudinal 1.5- to 1.7-cm colon perforations were created with a needle knife and an insulated-tip knife, and the perforation was subsequently closed with EBL. During a 2-week follow-up period, the animals were carefully monitored and then euthanized for pathologic examination.

RESULTS

The EBL of iatrogenic colon perforations was successful in all dogs. The mean procedure time for EBL closure with one to three bands was 191.7 seconds, and there were no immediate complications. One animal was euthanized after 3 days because of peritonitis. There were no clinical and laboratory features of sepsis or peritonitis in the remaining six animals. On necropsy, we did not find any fecal peritonitis, pericolonic abscess formation, or transmural dehiscence at the perforation site. Histopathology demonstrated inflamed granulation tissue and scar lesions replaced by fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

EBL might be a feasible and safe method for the management of iatrogenic colon perforations in an in vivo model.

Decision-making in the management of colonoscopic perforation: a multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colonoscopic perforation has increased following the widespread use of colonoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal disease. The purpose of our study was to compare the clinical outcomes between surgical and non-surgical treatment of colonoscopic perforation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with colonoscopic perforation, which was treated between January 2005 and December 2014. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they received non-surgical (conservative management or endoscopic clipping) or surgical (primary closure, bowel resection and anastomosis, and/or faecal diversion) initial treatment for the perforation. Conversion was defined as the change from a non-surgical to surgical procedure after treatment failure.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine patients were analysed. Surgical treatment was more common following diagnostic than therapeutic colonoscopic procedures (74.5 vs. 53.7 %, P = 0.023). Of 55 patients in the non-surgical group, 11 patients required conversion to surgery. The surgical group comprised 54 patients. The complication rate (P = 0.001), and the length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly greater in the patients requiring conversion than in the surgical group. Multivariate analysis showed that old age, American Society for Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, and conversion were independent predictors of poor outcomes (P = 0.048, 0.032, and 0.001, respectively). Only perforation size was associated with conversion in multivariate analysis (P = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

It is important to select an appropriate treatment in patients with colonoscopic perforation. To avoid non-surgical treatment failure, surgery should be considered in patients with a large perforation. By decreasing the rate of conversion, we might reduce the complication and mortality rates associated with colonoscopic perforation.

Endoscopic closure of acute perforations of the GI tract: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Surgical repair of endoscopic perforations of the GI tract used to be the standard, but immediate, secure endoscopic closure has become an attractive alternative treatment with the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to perform a systematic review of the medical literature on endoscopic closure of acute iatrogenic perforations of the GI tract.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines.

SETTING

Available medical literature from 1966 through November 2013.

PATIENTS

Patients with an acute perforation after an endoscopic procedure that was closed endoscopically.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic closure of an acute perforation of the GI tract.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Clinically successful endoscopic closure.

RESULTS

In our search, we identified 726 studies, 702 of which had to be excluded. Twenty-four cohort studies (21 retrospective, 3 prospective) were included in the analysis. No randomized trials were identified. Overall, the methodological quality was low. The 24 studies included described 466 acute perforations in which endoscopic closure was attempted. Successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 419 cases (89.9%; 95% CI, 87%-93%). Successful closure was achieved in 90.2% (n = 359; 95% CI, 87%-93%) of cases by using endoclips, in 87.8% (n = 58; 95% CI, 78%-95%) by using the over-the-scope-clip, and in 100% (n = 2) by using a metal stent.

LIMITATIONS

Low methodological quality of included studies.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that endoscopic perforation closure is a safe and effective alternative for surgical intervention in selected cases; however, the overall methodological quality was low. Prospective, true consecutive studies are needed to define the definitive role of endoscopic closure of perforations.

Management of iatrogenic colorectal perforation: From surgery to endoscopy

Iatrogenic colon perforation is one the most pernicious complications for patients undergoing endoscopic screening or therapy. It is a serious but rare complication of colonoscopy. However, with the expansion of the indications for endoscopic therapies for gastrointestinal diseases, the frequency of colorectal perforation has increased. The management of iatrogenic colorectal perforation is still a challenge for many endoscopists. The methods for treating this complication vary, including conservative treatment, surgical treatment, laparoscopy and endoscopy. In this review, we highlight the etiology, recognition and treatment of colorectal iatrogenic perforation. Specifically, we shed light on the endoscopic management of this rare complication.

Endoscopic management of iatrogenic perforations during endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal polyps: a case series

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic perforation during therapeutic colonoscopy, reported in up to 1% of endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs) and up to 14% of endoscopic submucosal dissections (ESDs), has conventionally been an indication for surgery.

AIMS

We present a case series of successful endoscopic management of iatrogenic colorectal perforation during EMR and ESD, demonstrating the feasibility and safety of the method.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a database of patients undergoing EMR and ESD for colorectal polyps in a tertiary referral centre in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Four cases of perforation were identified (two EMRs and two ESDs) in a series of 218 procedures (1.8%), all detected at the time of endoscopy and managed with endoscopic clips. Patients were observed in hospital and treated with antibiotics. Their median length of stay was 3 days (range 2-6 days), with no mortality or need for surgery.

CONCLUSION

Surgery is no longer the first choice in the management of iatrogenic perforations during EMR and ESD for colorectal polyps; in selected patients with small perforations and minimal extraluminal contamination, conservative management with application of endoscopic clips, antibiotics and close patient monitoring constitute a safe and effective treatment option, avoiding the morbidity of major surgery.

Management of polypectomy complications

The 2 most significant complications of colonoscopy with polypectomy are bleeding and perforation. Incidence rates for bleeding (0.1%-0.6%) and perforation (0.7%-0.9%) are generally low. Recognition of pertinent risk factors helps to prevent these complications, which can be grouped into patient-related, polyp-related, and technique/device-related factors. Endoscopists should be equipped to manage bleeding and perforation. Currently available devices and techniques are reviewed to achieve hemostasis and close colon perforations.