Laparoscopic treatment of colonic perforations related to colonoscopy

Iatrogenic colon perforation during colonoscopy, diagnosis/treatment, and follow-up processes: A single-center experience

Objectives

latrogenic colon perforation (ICP) is one of the most feared complications of colonoscopy and causes unwanted morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aimed to discuss the characteristics of the cases of ICP we encountered in our endoscopy clinic, its etiology, our treatment approaches, and results in the light of the current literature.

Material and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated the cases of ICP among 9.709 lower gastrointestinal system endoscopy procedures (colonoscopy + rectosigmoidoscopy) performed for diagnostic purposes in our endoscopy clinic during 2002-2020.

Results

A total of seven cases of ICP were detected. The diagnosis was made during the procedure in six patients and after eight hours in one patient, and their treatment was performed urgently. Whereas surgical procedures were performed in all patients, the type of the procedure varied; laparoscopic primary repair was performed in two patients and laparotomy in five patients. In the patients who underwent laparotomy, primary repair was performed in three patients, partial colon resection and end-to-end anastomosis in one patient, and loop colostomy in one patient. The patients were hospitalized for an average of 7.14 days. The patients who did not develop complications in the postoperative follow-up were discharged with full recovery.

Conclusion

Prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment of ICP is crucial to prevent morbidity and mortality.

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.

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.

The analysis of outcomes of surgical management for colonoscopic perforations: A 16-years experiences at a single institution

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy-induced colonic perforation often requires surgical management. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes after surgery for colonoscopic perforations (CPs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review study of 48 patients who underwent surgery for CPs between January 2002 and May 2017. The patients were divided into two groups: Group I (n = 25) had diagnostic CPs, and Group II (n = 23) had therapeutic CPs.

RESULTS

The most common perforation sites in Group I were the sigmoid colon (n = 19; 76.0%), whereas in Group II were the transverse colon (n = 10, 43.5%) and sigmoid colon (n = 10, 43.5%; p = 0.013). The surgeries performed were primary closure (n = 16, [64.0%] Group I; n = 11 [47.8%] Group II) and bowel resection (n = 9 [36.0%] Group I; n = 11 [47.8%] Group II). The rate of temporary stomas was higher in Group II (n = 9, 26.1%) than Group I (n = 2, 8.0%; p = 0.030). The re-perforation rate after surgery was 8.0% (n = 2) in Group I and 8.7% (n = 2) in Group II (p = 0.568). These re-perforation patients all those who had a simple closure without a wedge resection. The conversion rate after laparoscopic surgery was 20.0% (n = 2 of 10) in Group I and 33.3% (n = 1 of 3) in Group II.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management is one of the important therapies in the treatment of CP. Simple primary closure without a wedge resection should be used cautiously. Therapeutic CPs was associated with more temporary stoma formation. The type of surgery should be carefully selected, depending on the type of CP.

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.

Treatment of colonoscopic perforation: outcomes from a major single tertiary institution

BACKGROUND

The use of colonoscopy has been increasing in Australia. This case series describes management and outcomes of colonoscopic perforation managed by a single tertiary referral unit.

METHODS

An analysis of 13 years (2003-2015) of prospectively collected data on patients who had a colonoscopic perforation and were managed by the colorectal unit at a single tertiary referral centre was performed. Main outcomes were time of diagnosis, modality of management, time to theatre, length of stay, cost of admission and complications.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients had perforations (median age of 69 years). Thirty-eight (61.2%) patients had their colonoscopy performed in another institution. The incidence rate decreased to 0.37 perforations per 1000 colonoscopies within Western Health. Overall, diagnostic colonoscopies accounted for 56% of perforations and perforations were likely to occur in the left colon (P = 0.006). Fifty-one (82%) patients underwent surgery during their admission, with 24% of these being laparoscopic procedures. An earlier diagnosis was associated with significantly less intra-abdominal contamination. Gross peritoneal contamination was more likely to be associated with the decision to form a stoma (37%, n = 19, P = 0.04). Thirty-day mortality was 1.6% (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopic perforations occur in experienced hands and may have serious implications. We demonstrated a difference in patterns of injury between therapeutic and diagnostic colonoscopies. Those who have an earlier diagnosis are less likely to have severe intra-abdominal contamination requiring a stoma formation.

Management of iatrogenic perforation during colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis patients: a survey of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons

PURPOSE

Patients with ulcerative colitis, a high-risk group for the development of colon cancer, undergo colonoscopy more frequently than the general population. This increase in endoscopic evaluation also exposes these patients to an increased risk of complications, including iatrogenic perforation. Our survey study aims to determine factors that affect the management choices for iatrogenic perforations for ulcerative colitis patients in remission and identify areas of consensus among general gastroenterologists, inflammatory bowel disease specialists, and colorectal surgeons.

METHODS

An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was performed using an online platform. A matrix questionnaire posed five clinical scenarios with six management options for an iatrogenic perforation in ulcerative colitis patients with varying disease distribution, disease activity, and maintenance regimens.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight general gastroenterologists, 35 inflammatory bowel disease specialists, and 174 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey; 47, 41, and 23%, respectively, answered they did not feel comfortable managing perforations in ulcerative colitis patients in remission. We found the greatest concordance among gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in cases of perforation in ulcerative colitis with a history of dysplasia; the majority of respondents chose staged total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. We found discordance in decision making for ulcerative colitis in remission without dysplasia, with perforation occurring in colitis involved and uninvolved areas.

CONCLUSION

Our survey revealed that a significant fraction of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons are uncomfortable managing iatrogenic colonic perforations in ulcerative colitis patients. We have identified knowledge and practice gaps in defining the optimal management of iatrogenic perforations in ulcerative colitis patients.

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.

Endoscopic perforations: what are the indications for surgery?

BACKGROUND

Despite their low occurrence, endoscopic perforations (EPs) are concerning. Some predictive factors have been identified, and EP management is debated, whether non-surgical (medical and/or endoscopic) or surgical. The objective was to elaborate a predictive score for surgical management of EP.

METHODS

All the patients addressed for upper and lower EP, except oesophageal EP, were retrospectively included (2004-2015). Demographic data, endoscopic features (indication, location, type), clinical, biological and radiological presentations of EP were reviewed. Management of EP and outcomes were recorded. A predictive score was constructed by multiple linear regression and a cut-off value for surgical management was identified. Additional subgroup analysis was performed according to the location of EP (upper and lower).

RESULTS

Among 41150 endoscopic procedures, 44 patients (22 males, median age = 65 years [22-87]) presenting with EP were included (0.09%). Lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy was mostly performed (66%). EP diagnosis was immediate in 73% of the cases (n = 32). Non-surgical management was efficient in 2/3 cases treated medically alone, and 18/20 cases treated by endoscopy. Surgical management was always successful (n = 24/24). In case of peritonitis, surgery was systematically required, whereas easily required in case of delayed diagnostic of EP. The EP score was based on the presence of previous abdominal surgery, lower GI endoscopy and diagnostic endoscopy. A cut-off EP score of 22.8% for surgery was chosen; it was associated with a specificity and sensitivity of 40 and 100%, respectively. When subgroups were analysed according to EP location, the EP score was still based on the presence of previous abdominal surgery and diagnostic endoscopy. The cut-off was 6.3 and 73.3% for upper (specificity: 73%, sensitivity: 100%) and lower (89 and 45%) locations, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The predictive EP score may avoid inappropriate surgical management, as well as delayed surgery after non-surgical management failure. Forthcoming study should prospectively validate this score.

Colonoscopic perforations: Single center experience and review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Head and neck subcutaneous emphysema, a rare complication of iatrogenic perforation during colonoscopy: management review of reported cases from 2000-2016

INTRODUCTION

Subcutaneous face and neck emphysema secondary to colonic perforation is a rare complication of colonoscopy. Presentation may be complicated by pneumothorax and/or respiratory distress. Evidence limited to case studies. Therefore, no management consensus of these rarely reported cases exists.

METHODS

All cases published on PubMed between 1 January 2000-1 November 2016 reporting subcutaneous face and/or neck emphysema after colonoscopy are included. Management is discussed with trends identified. We report a case of a patient undergoing routine polypectomy who developed subcutaneous emphysema of the face, neck and thorax with a pneumothorax and pneumoretroperitoneum.

RESULTS

37 cases were found (mean age = 64.1 ± 15.09 years). The majority (n = 24) were managed non-operatively. Conservative and operative management had mean inpatient stays of 7.6 ± 4.65 and 19.5 +/- 21.62 days respectively. Sixteen cases had a concomitant pneumothorax with nine (56.3%) requiring decompression. No mortalities occurred.

CONCLUSION

An understanding of anatomy heightens awareness of the rare complication of face and/or neck surgical emphysema, secondary to pneumoretroperitoneum and pneumothorax, after perforation of the colon during endoscopy. Management remains controversial with expectant conservative bowel rest with antibiotics and operative intervention described. Conservative management had a shorter inpatient stay and was more common in younger patients.

Recognition of Extraperitoneal Colonic Perforation following Colonoscopy: A Review of the Literature

Colon perforation is an uncommon but serious complication of colonoscopy. It may occur as either intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal perforation or in combination. The majority of colonic perforations are intraperitoneal, causing air and intracolonic contents to leak into the peritoneal space. Rarely, colonic perforation can be extraperitoneal, leading to the passage of air into the retroperitoneal space causing pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, pneumopericardium, pneumothorax, and subcutaneous emphysema. A literature review revealed that 31 cases of extraperitoneal perforation exist, out of which 20 cases also reported concomitant intraperitoneal perforation. We report the case of a young female with a history of ulcerative colitis who developed combined intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal perforation after colonoscopy. We also report the duration of onset of symptoms, clinical features, imaging findings, site of leak, and treatment administered in previously reported cases of extraperitoneal colonic perforation.

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.

The Efficacy of a Novel Tissue Grasper-Clips Technique for Large Perforations of the Sigmoid Colon in an Experimental Animal Model (Video)

BACKGROUND

The incidence of iatrogenic colonic perforation has been gradually increasing. In particular, sigmoid colon perforations are difficult to handle because of excess mobility.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the twin grasper-clips technique for large perforations of the sigmoid colon.

METHODS

This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, experimental study using ex vivo porcine colorectal specimens. Thirty standardized and variable artificial perforations were closed in the hemoclip group (hemoclips) and twin grasper group (hemoclips with a novel tissue grasper). We counted the number of hemoclips used per case to assess the cost and efficacy of the procedure.

RESULTS

In the hemoclip group (n = 15), among the 20-, 25-, and 30-mm defects, the mean number of clips (4.8 ± 0.8, 6.0 ± 1.6, and 8.4 ± 2.1, respectively, p = 0.011) and closure time (7.6 ± 0.5, 9.9 ± 3.3, and 13.9 ± 4.1 min, respectively, p = 0.020) differed significantly. In the twin grasper group (n = 15), among the 20-, 25-, and 30-mm defects, the mean number of clips (4.0 ± 1.0, 5.0 ± 0.7, and 5.4 ± 1.1, respectively, p = 0.101) and closure time (7.7 ± 0.6, 8.3 ± 1.9, and 9.1 ± 2.7 min, respectively, p = 0.506) did not differ significantly. In 30-mm defects, the mean number of hemoclips used per case and total closure time were significantly lower in the twin grasper group than the hemoclip group.

CONCLUSIONS

The twin grasper-clips technique seems to reduce the use of hemoclips and to result in more effective and rapid closure than does the conventional technique in large perforations of the ex vivo porcine sigmoid colon.

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.

Pneumomediastinum, Pneumothorax, and Subcutaneous Emphysema Caused by Colonoscopic Perforation: A Report of Two Cases

BACKGROUND

Although colonoscopy is generally a safe procedure, lethal complications can occur. Colonoscopic perforation is one of the most serious complications, and it can present with various clinical symptoms and signs. Aggravating abdominal pain and free air on simple radiography are representative clinical manifestations of colonoscopic perforation. However, unusual symptoms and signs, such as dyspnea and subcutaneous emphysema, which are less likely to be related with complicating colonoscopy, may obscure correct clinical diagnosis. We present two cases of pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, and subcutaneous emphysema caused by colonoscopic perforation.

CASE REPORT

A 75-year-old woman and a 65-year-old man presented with dyspnea, and facial swelling and abdominal pain, respectively. In the first case, symptoms occurred during polypectomy, whereas they occurred after polypectomy in the second case. Chest radiograph and computed tomography scans revealed pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, and subcutaneous emphysema in the neck. During both operations, an ascending colonic subserosa filled with air bubbles was observed, and laparoscopic right hemicolectomy was performed in the first case. In the second case, after mobilization of the right colon, retroperitoneal colonic perforation was identified and primary repair was performed. The postoperative course was uneventful. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: These cases show the unusual clinical manifestations of colonoscopic perforation, which depend on the mechanism of perforation. Awareness of these less typical manifestations is crucial for prompt diagnosis and management for an emergency physician.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

The role of surgery in the treatment of endoscopic complications

As the number, diversity, and complexity of endoscopic complications has increased, so too has the number, diversity, and complexity of operative interventions required to treat them. The most common complications of endoscopy in general are bleeding and perforation, but each endoscopic modality has specific nuances of these and other complications. Accordingly, this review considers the surgical complications of endoscopy by location within the gastrointestinal tract, as opposed to by complication types, since there are many complication types that are specific for only one or few locations, such as buried-bumper syndrome after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and since the management of a given complication, such as perforation, may be vastly different in one area than in another area, such as perforations of the esophagus versus the retroperitoneal duodenum versus the intraperitoneal duodenum. It is hoped that this review will provide guidance for gastroenterologists considering a particular procedure, either to assess the risks for surgical complications in preparation for patient counseling, or assist in assessing a patient who seems to be having a severe complication, or to learn what operation might be required to treat a given complication and how that operation might be performed. As with many operations, those for the treatment of endoscopic complications are typically performed only when less invasive, nonoperative strategies fail.

Fatal Clostridium perfringens Septicemia After Colonoscopic Polypectomy, Without Bowel Perforation

Since its introduction, colonoscopy has played an important role as a diagnostic, therapeutic, and screening tool. In general, colonoscopy is regarded as a safe procedure, but complications may occur. The most dreaded of these complications is colonic perforation. Bacteremia postprocedure may occur, and although it is not uncommon, it rarely results in clinically significant complications. Patients with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) are a high-risk population for bacteremia, which may leads to bowel wall overstepping by the bacteria. With regard to that, we report a fatal case of gas gangrene complicating colonoscopy polypectomy without bowel perforation in a healthy adult. To the best of our knowledge, only two other cases of retroperitoneal gas gangrene associated with colonoscopy polypectomy without bowel perforation have been described in international literature, but none of which was completed by a molecular biology analysis.

Verres needle desufflation as an effective treatment option for colonic perforation after colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the incidence of colonoscopic perforation and the efficacy of minimal invasive management by Verres needle desufflation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All colonoscopies performed between January 2007 and January 2012, at the Maastricht University Medical Centre, were reviewed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 18,449 colonoscopies were performed. Fourteen colonoscopic perforations were diagnosed. Seven patients underwent immediate surgery, whereas the remaining 7 patients were initially managed conservatively: 5 of these patients also underwent Verres needle desufflation. One of the patients who received Verres needle desufflation underwent secondary surgery because of failure of nonsurgical treatment. Conservative management of colonoscopic perforation, including treatment with Verres needle desufflation, was associated with lower complication rates and shorter hospital stays compared with immediate surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Verres needle desufflation in combination with nil per os and antibiotic treatment is a safe option for managing colon perforation after colonoscopy in selected patients lacking clinical signs of peritonitis or sepsis.

A comparison of two endoscopic closures: over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus KING closure (endoloop + clips) in a randomized long-term experimental study

BACKGROUND

Both over-the-scope clip (OTSC) and KING (endoloop + clips) closures provide reliable and safe full-thickness endoscopic closure. Nevertheless, OTSC clip demonstrated significantly inferior histological healing in the short-term follow-up.

AIM

To compare OTSC versus KING closure of a perforation with regard to long-term effectiveness and macroscopic and histological quality of healing.

METHODS

We performed a randomized experimental study with 16 mini-pigs (mean weight 43.2 ± 11.2 kg). A standardized perforation was performed on the anterior sigmoid wall. KING closure (n = 8) was attained by approximation of an endoloop fixed to the margins of a perforation with endoclips. OTSC closure (n = 8) was performed by deploying OTSC (OVESCO) over the defect. Pigs underwent a control sigmoidoscopy 8 months after the closure to assess the macroscopic quality of healing. Then, autopsy was performed and the rectosigmoid was sent for histopathological assessment.

RESULTS

All closures were completed successfully without air leaks. The duration of closure was similar in both techniques (OTSC 17.8 ± 7.6 min vs. KING 19.6 ± 8.8 min). At autopsy, all KING closures (100 %) were healed with a flat scar without signs of leakage. Microscopically, no inflammatory changes were observed after KING closure. In the OTSC group, microscopic ulcers were present in two pigs (25 %), cryptal abscesses in three pigs (38 %) and significant neutrophil accumulation in all eight pigs (P < 0.01). Giant cell granulomas, dysplasia or abundant scarification was not observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OTSC and KING closures offer a long-term reliable seal of a gastrointestinal perforation without stenosis or fistulas. KING closure provides long-term histologically superior healing.

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.

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.

Colonoscopic perforation management by laparoendoscopy: an algorithm

Laparoscopic intervention may be a safe and effective alternative to open surgery for management of perforation during colonoscopic examination. A simple algorithm is presented that may be helpful for those considering a laparoscopic approach to managing this condition.

Background and Objectives:

The role of laparoscopy in the management of iatrogenic colonoscopic injuries has increased with surgeons becoming facile with minimally invasive methods. However, with a limited number of reported cases of successful laparoscopic repair, the exact role of this modality is still being defined. Drawing from previous literature and our own experiences, we have formulated a simple algorithm that has helped us treat colonoscopic perforations.

Methods:

A retrospective review was undertaken of patients treated for colonoscopic perforations since the algorithm's introduction. For each patient, initial clinical assessment, management, and postoperative recovery were carefully documented. A Medline search was performed, incorporating the following search words: colonoscopy, perforation, and laparoscopy. Twenty-three articles involving 106 patients were identified and reviewed.

Results:

Between May 2009 and August 2012, 7 consecutive patients with colonoscopic perforations were managed by 2 surgeons using the algorithm. There were no complications and no deaths, with a mean length of stay of 4.43 days (range, 2–7 days). Of the 7 patients, 6 required surgery. A single patient was managed conservatively and later underwent an elective colon resection.

Conclusions:

Traditionally, laparotomy was the preferred method for treating colonoscopic perforations. Our initial experience reinforces previous views that laparoendoscopic surgery is a safe and effective alternative to traditional surgery for managing this complication. We have formulated a simple algorithm that we have found helpful for surgeons considering a laparoscopic approach to managing this condition.

Severe adverse outcomes of endoscopic perforations in patients with and without IBD

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy-associated perforation (EAP) is a dreaded adverse event with significant morbidity and even mortality. Whether EAP in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with worse outcomes is not known. We aimed to assess the frequency of perforations in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies and compare the risk factors and perforation-associated complications (PAC) in patients with IBD with those without IBD.

METHODS

In this case-control study, we identified patients with lower GI EAP from January 2002 to June 2011. PAC was defined as EAP-associated death, colectomy with ileostomy, and bowel resection with/without diverting ostomy. Twenty-nine demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and surgical features were evaluated in univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 217,334 lower GI endoscopies were performed (IBD, N = 9518 and non-IBD, N = 207,816). Eighty-four patients with EAP were included. The rate of perforation was 18.91 per 10,000 and 2.50 per 10,000 procedures for IBD and non-IBD endoscopy, respectively. PAC occurred in 59 patients (70.2%) with death in 4 (4.8%) and bowel resection with or without ostomy in 55 (65.5%) (total colectomy with ileostomy, n = 3; resection with diversion and secondary anastomosis, n = 28; and resection with primary anastomosis, n = 24). On multivariable analysis, the use of systemic corticosteroids at the time of endoscopy was associated with 13 times greater risk for PAC (13.5 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-1839.7] P = 0.007), whereas IBD was not found to be associated with an increased risk for PAC (0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.23-2.1] P = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBD have a higher frequency of EAP than those without IBD. Endoscopists need to be cautious while performing a lower GI endoscopy in patients taking systemic corticosteroids.

Comparison of the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon perforation during colonoscopy

Purpose

Colonoscopy is a safe and commonly used method for the screening of colon cancer, but sometimes major complications, such as, colonic perforation or hemorrhage occur during the procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colon perforation after colonoscopy.

Methods

A retrospective review of patient records was performed on 25 patients with iatrogenic colon perforation during colonoscopy during the 7-year period from January 2005 to June 2012. Demographic data, operative procedures, operation times, postoperative complications, hospital course, and morbidities in the laparoscopic surgery group (LG) and open surgery group (OG) were compared.

Results

Seventeen of the 25 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (68%) and 8 patients open surgery (32%). The most common surgical methods were primary repair in the LG, and Hartmann's operation in the OG. Average time to first flatus was 2.9 days in the LG and 4.5 days in the OG, and average times to first meals were 4.5 days and 5 days, respectively. Mean hospital stays were 10.8 days in the LG and 17 days in the OG. After surgery, complications occurred in two patients in the LG, but no complication occurred in the OG.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic repair for iatrogenic colonic perforation during colonoscopy seems to be useful and safe surgical method in early period after perforation. However, open surgery is also needed for the delayed cases after perforation.

Lower rate of colonoscopic perforation: 110,785 patients of colonoscopy performed by colorectal surgeons in a large teaching hospital in China

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopic perforation (CP) has a low incidence rate. However, with the extensive use of colonoscopy, even low incidence rates should be evaluated to identify and address risks. Information on CP is quite limited in China.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to determine the frequency of CP in colonoscopies performed by surgeons at a large teaching hospital in China over a 12-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records was performed for all patients who had CPs from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2012. Iatrogenic perforations were identified mainly by abdominal X-ray or computed tomography scan. Follow-up information of adverse events post-colonoscopy was identified from the colorectal surgery database of our hospital. Patients' demographic data, colonoscopy procedure information, location of perforation, treatment, and outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 110,785 diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy procedures were performed (86,800 diagnostic cases and 23,985 therapeutic cases) within the 12-year study period. A total of 14 incidents (0.012%) of CP were reported (seven males and seven females), of which nine cases occurred during diagnostic colonoscopy (0.01%) and five after therapeutic colonoscopy (three polypectomy cases, one endoscopic mucosal resection, and one endoscopic mucosal dissection). Mean patient age was 67.14 years. One case of CP (7.14%) after colonoscopy polypectomy was treated using curative colonoscopy endoclips. Other patients underwent operations: six cases (46.15%) of primary repair, four cases (28.57%) of resection with anastomosis, and two cases (15.38%) of resection without anastomosis. No obvious perforation was found in one patient (7.69%). Surgeons attempted to treat one case laparoscopically but eventually resorted to open surgery. The postoperative course was uncomplicated in eight cases (57.14%) and complicated in six cases (42.86%) but without mortality.

CONCLUSION

CP is a serious but rare complication of colonoscopy. A perforation risk of 0.012% was found in our study. The optimal management of CP remains controversial. Treatment for CP should be individualized according to the patient's condition, related devices, and surgical skills of endoscopists or surgeons. Selective measures such as colonoscopy without intravenous sedation and decrease of loop formation can effectively reduce rates of perforation.

Laparoscopic management of colonic complications in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome type IV

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome type IV, also known as the vascular type, is the most severe form of the disease. It may cause spontaneous bowel perforation and rupture of major arteries. The treatment of bowel perforation in this population remains controversial because they are at risk for major wound complications owing to poor healing. We report the first use of laparoscopy in children with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

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

BACKGROUND

Although the incidence of perforation after endoscopic procedures of the colon is low, the rising number of diagnostic colonoscopies could pose relevant health problems. Optimizing treatment may reduce the probability of severe complications. This study aimed to determine perforation frequency and the management of perforations that occurred during diagnostic colonoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patient records was performed for all patients with iatrogenic colonic perforations after sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy from 2000 to 2011 in three institutions of The Catholic University of Korea. The patients' demographic data, endoscopic procedure information, perforation location, therapy, and outcomes along with different therapeutic strategies were recorded.

RESULTS

In the 12-year period, a total of 115,285 diagnostic sigmoidoscopic/colonoscopic procedures were performed. A total of 27 perforations occurred. Sixteen patients underwent endoscopic clipping, of which three patients failed and were referred for surgery. Fourteen patients in total underwent surgery for perforation. Endoscopic clip closure was successful in 81 % of the patients. No perforation-related major morbidity or mortality occurred.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic repair using clips can be effective for the treatment of colon perforations that occur during diagnostic colonoscopy.

The Indications for Nonsurgical Management in Patients with Colorectal Perforation after Colonoscopy

Recently, the risk of colonic perforation has been increasing with the increased frequency of advanced therapeutic endoscopy. However, guidelines for the management of colon perforations after colonoscopy have not been established. This study aimed to evaluate the indications for nonsurgical management. This study was conducted as a case–control study with 22 patients who were managed for colorectal perforations after colonoscopy from June 2004 to July 2009. Colonoscopy was performed in 12 patients (54.4%) for diagnostic purposes and 10 (45.5%) for therapeutic reasons. The most common site of perforation was the sigmoid colon (77.3%). Five patients underwent nonsurgical treatment, and 17 patients received surgical treatment. The duration of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the two groups. Abdominal pain and fever were significantly more commonly encountered in the surgical management group ( P = 0.043 and 0.011, respectively). All of the patients who were suitable for nonsurgical treatment were diagnosed within 24 hours and received bowel preparation before the colonoscopy. The nonsurgical treatment of colonic perforation after colonoscopy could be feasible in afebrile patients with less severe abdominal pain. Moreover, cases that were diagnosed within 24 hours and received bowel preparation before colonoscopy were associated with better outcomes.

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.

Iatrogenic perforation at colonic imaging

AIM

Adequate colonic imaging is generally an invasive procedure with attendant risks, particularly perforation. Endoscopy, barium enema and computed tomographic colonography (CTC) are the main techniques for investigating patients with symptoms of, or screening for, colorectal cancer. The potential complications of these investigations have to be weighed against the benefits. This article reviews the literature on the incidence, presentation and management of iatrogenic colonic perforation at colonic imaging.

METHOD

A literature review of relevant studies was undertaken using PubMed, Cochrane library and personal archives of references. Manual cross-referencing was performed, and relevant references from selected articles were reviewed. Studies reporting complications of endoscopy, barium enema and CT colonography were included in this review.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were identified comprising 640,433 colonoscopies, with iatrogenic perforation recorded in 585 patients (0.06%). The reported perforation rate with double-contrast barium enema was between 0.02 and 0.24%. Serious complications with CTC were infrequent, though nine perforations were reported in a case series of 24,365 patients (0.036%) undergoing CTC.

CONCLUSION

Perforation remains an infrequent and almost certainly under-reported, complication of all colonic imaging modalities. Risk awareness, early diagnosis and active management of iatrogenic perforation minimizes an adverse outcome.

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 approach to colonic perforation due to colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic perforation due to colonoscopy is the most serious complication of this procedure. Usually, resolution of this event requires segmental resection. The laparoscopic approach could be an option to minimize the outcome of this complication. The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of the laparoscopic approach in treating colonic perforations due to colonoscopy.

METHODS

Between July 1997 and November 2008 data were collected retrospectively on all patients who underwent colonoscopy and had a perforation caused by the procedure. Patients with other complications after colonoscopy as well as other colonic perforations were excluded. According to the method employed for the approach, the series was divided in two groups: those treated by the laparoscopic approach (group I; GI) and those treated via laparotomy (group II; GII). Morbidity and recovery parameters were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test and the chi square test.

RESULTS

A total of 14,713 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. Of these, 10,299 (73 %) were diagnostics and 4,414 (27%) were therapeutics. There were 20 (0.13%) iatrogenic perforations (GI = 14 versus GII = 6). The mean age of the patients was 62 +/- 12.1 years. There were no differences in patient demographics, co-morbidities, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades between the groups. Seventeen patients had segmental colectomy with primary anastomosis (GI: 13 versus GII: 4). One patient in each group had simple suture with diverting ileostomy, and one patient from GII underwent a Hartmann's procedure. Patients from GI had a shorter hospital stay (GI: 4.2 +/- 2.06 days versus GII 11.5 +/- 8.8 days; P = 0.007) and there were no differences in complication rate compared with GII (GI: 3 versus GII: 5; P = 0.058).

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

[Incidence of iatrogenic perforation during colonoscopy and their treatment in a university hospital]

INTRODUCTION

Colon perforation is a fairly uncommon, but serious, complication during endoscopy of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Treatment is controversial, although surgery is used in the majority of cases. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence of perforations due to colonoscopy in our hospital and to find out the results of the treatment options used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of perforations caused by colonoscopy between January 2004 and October 2008. The variables analysed were: demographic characteristics, colonoscopy indication, clinical signs and symptoms, diagnostic tests used, time between perforation and the diagnosis, treatment type, hospital stay and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 13,493 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. A perforation of the colon was found in 13 (0.1%) patients. Nine perforations occurred whilst performing a diagnostic colonoscopy (0.08%) and the remaining 4 after a therapeutic colonoscope (0.16%). In 10 of the cases the diagnosis was made within the first 12h, and in 5 of these the perforation was identified during the procedure itself. The most common location was the sigmoid, in 7 cases. Surgical treatment was carried out on 11 patients, and in the other two it was resolved by conservative treatment. The most used surgical technique was simple suture followed by resection with anastomosis. One patient died due to intra-abdominal sepsis.

CONCLUSION

Perforations caused by colonoscopy are rare, but serious, complications. The majority of these patients required surgical treatment, with conservative treatment being reserved for selected patients.

Laparoscopic closure of small bowel perforation: Technique of small bowel anchoring to the abdominal wall

INTRODUCTION

More and more complicated laparoscopic abdominal surgeries are now being performed across the world. Laparoscopic suturing of the bowel perforations is being performed by experienced surgeons. We have developed our own technique of small bowel anchoring to the abdominal wall before suturing the perforation.

OUR MODIFICATION

A single stitch is taken at the corner of the perforation. The long end of the suture is retrieved by a suture retrieval needle and the small bowel is anchored to the abdominal wall. Rest of the bowel perforation is suture by the intracorporeal knot-tying technique.

ADVANTAGES

Anchoring the bowel to the abdominal wall helps in fixation of the bowel to be sutured. This helps specifically for large perforation. Suturing and knot tying is relatively easy by this technique.

The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of complications after colonoscopy

Perforations of the colonic wall or splenic injury during colonoscopy are rare complications. Treatment of these complications by laparoscopy is an advisable compromise instead of an invasive surgery with a laparotomy or a noninvasive and potentially risky nonoperative therapy. All surgical procedures that can be performed by open approach can also be performed laparoscopically. We present in this report 15 patients who were treated for a perforation after colonoscopy. In addition, 2 cases of splenic injury after colonoscopy are described. Twelve perforations were sutured laparoscopically and 3 perforations were sutured via laparotomy. Except for 1 minor wound infection, there were no complications. One splenic injury was treated by spleen wrapping via an open approach due to former pancreatic surgery, and 1 injury was treated laparoscopically with a hemostypticum. Mortality was 0%. Early laparoscopic intervention is a safe and effective method in the treatment of serious complications after colonoscopy.

[Experimental study on a new method for colonoscopic closure of large-bowel perforations with the OTSC clip]

Iatrogenic perforation of the colon during interventional endoscopic procedures, e.g., mucosectomy, is a problematic complication, as safe treatment often requires surgical repair. Iatrogenic perforation of the colon is indeed a rare complication; however, given the increasing case numbers in interventional endoscopy it is of considerable practical relevance. The closure of perforations can be achieved with conventional endoscopic clips; however, these working channel based clips are often too small to close a perforation securely. Therefore, we have developed a novel endoscopic clipping system that can be attached to the tip of the endoscope. This over-the-scope-clip system (OTSC), made of Nitinol, was tested in an experimental trial (domestic pig, 50-60 kg) for its applicability for perforation closure. In acute experiments, tight endoscopic closure of 10 perforations in five animals was demonstrated; perforations were made through repeat biopsy. In three further animals, the postoperative course was studied over a period of 2 weeks. Peritonitis was not found in any of these animals. The local healing result at the site of implantation was good. Clips were present 2 weeks after the procedure. In this experimental study, the OTSC clip system was found to be a simple and secure method of iatrogenic colon perforation closure.

Initial repair of iatrogenic colon perforation using laparoscopic methods

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic perforation of the colon during elective colonoscopy is a rare but serious complication. Treatment using laparoscopic methods is a novel approach, only described in the recent literature. We hypothesized that laparoscopic treatment of iatrogenic colon perforation would result in equal therapeutic efficacy, less perioperative morbidity, smaller incisions and decreased length of stay, and an overall better short-term outcome compared to open methods.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively collected patient database from July 2001 to July 2005 and compared the intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic primary repair versus those who had open primary repairs of iatrogenically perforated large bowel.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic (mean age 70 years; range 20-91 years; 18 percent male) and open (mean age 68 years; range 36-87 years; 43 percent male) groups were similar with regard to age. Overall, patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 11) versus open (n = 7) repair had comparable operative (OR) times (mean 104 minutes, range 60-150 minutes versus mean 98 minutes, range 40-130 minutes, p = 0.04), shorter length of stay [LOS, (5.1 +/- 1.7 days versus 9.2 +/- 3.1 days, p = 0.01)], fewer complications (two versus five, p = 0.02) and shorter incision length (16 +/- 14.7 mm versus 163 +/- 54.4 mm, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic approach to iatrogenic colon perforation results in decreased morbidity, decreased length of stay, and a shorter incision length compared to an open method. In those cases where it is feasible and the surgical skills exist, a laparoscopic attempt at colon repair should probably be the initial clinical approach.

[Iatrogenic colon perforation: experiences with early laparoscopy]

BACKGROUND

Perforation during colonoscopy is a rare but severe complication.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis was done of 15 patients operated on for perforation from colonoscopy between January 2000 and December 2006.

RESULTS

Three perforations occurred during diagnostics and 12 during interventional colonoscopy. Two perforations occurred as transmural thermal injury to the colon wall. Peritonitis was found in four cases and correlated significantly with mean time between perforation and operation. Twelve perforations were sutured laparoscopically and three by laparotomy. Hospital stay was significantly shorter after laparoscopic treatment than by laparotomy. One patient had a postoperative wound infection, and mortality was 0%.

CONCLUSION

Early laparoscopic suturing is a safe and effective method in the treatment of perforation from colonoscopy.

Colonoscopic perforation

Perforation is an uncommon but important complication of colonoscopy. This review looks at the incidence, clinical features, diagnosis and treatment of this condition.

Laparoscopic repair of colonoscopic perforations: indications and guidelines

Iatrogenic colonic perforation is one of the most serious potential complications of colonoscopy. Standard management is surgical repair. No prospective data exist to clearly define the indications for laparoscopic repair. We report the largest case series to date of laparoscopic repair of colonoscopic perforations. A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing either exploratory laparoscopy with conversion to open repair, or laparoscopic repair of colonoscopic perforation. Exploratory laparoscopy for the attempted repair of colonoscopic perforations was performed in 11 patients at our institution. The mean colonic perforation size was 2.7 cm. Three cases were converted immediately to open laparotomy. A fourth patient that underwent primary laparoscopic repair of a 4-cm tear developed a leak at the repair site, necessitating reoperation. A fifth patient in whom exploratory laparoscopy was unrevealing underwent separate laparotomy for continued sepsis. Six patients underwent successful laparoscopic repair. Most perforations secondary to colonoscopy warrant rapid exploratory laparoscopy. Extensive inflammation or fecal soilage may require colonic diversion. Inability to laparoscopically localize the area of perforation or doubt regarding the security of the repair should prompt conversion to laparotomy. Laparoscopic repair of colonic perforations in experienced hands is a viable alternative to the open approach.

Endoluminal suturing may overcome the limitations of clip closure of a gaping wide colon perforation (with videos)

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether large gaping perforations of the colon can be closed by the endoluminal route.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and the outcome of closure of large perforations of colon with clips and sutures by using through-the-endoscope novel devices.

DESIGN

Prospective animal study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

Ten pigs.

INTERVENTIONS

Closure of a 4-cm full-thickness colon perforation freshly created by an insulated-tip knife with the InScope Multi-Clip Applier (n = 6) and with the tissue approximation device (n = 4).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

(a) Technical feasibility of closure, (b) clinical monitoring for 2 weeks, (c) necropsy (day 14), (d) healing by a dye-leak test and histology.

RESULTS

Endoluminal closure of a 4-cm-long colon perforation was successful in 9 of 10 animals. The clips failed to close a gaping wide colon perforation in 1 animal. The sutures were successful in the closure of both nongaping and gaping perforations. Successful closure resulted in a leakproof sealing at 2 weeks and prevented clinical peritonitis in all the animals in the clip-closure group and in 3 of 4 animals in the suture-closure group. Necropsy at 2 weeks revealed mild peritonitis in 2 of the 5 animals in the clip closure group and in 2 of the 4 animals in the suture-closure group; none developed fecal peritonitis.

LIMITATIONS

None.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoluminal closure of a 4-cm colon perforation with clips was successful in the majority of cases. Sutures were useful in the closure of gaping colon perforations that could not be closed with clips.

Colonoscopic perforations: a review of 30,366 patients

BACKGROUND

Although the incidence of perforation after endoscopic procedures of the colon is low, the rising number of procedures could pose relevant health problems. Recognizing risk factors and optimizing treatment may reduce perforation incidence and the probability of (severe) complications. This study aimed to determine perforation frequency and the management of endoscopic colonoscopic perforation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patient records was performed for all patients with iatrogenic colonic perforations after sigmoido/colonoscopy between 1990 and 2005. The patients' demographic data, endoscopic procedural information, perforation location, therapy, and outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

In the 16-year period, 30,366 endoscopic colonic procedures were performed. In total, 35 colonic perforations occured (0.12%). All the patients underwent a laparotomy: for primary repair in 18 cases (56%), for resection with anastomosis in 8 cases (25%), and for resection without anastomosis in 6 cases (19%). In three patients (8.6%), no perforation was found. The postoperative course was uncomplicated in 21 cases (60%) and complicated in 14 cases (40%), including mortality for 3 patients (8.6% resulting from perforations and 0.01% resulting from total endoscopic colon procedures). The relative risk ratio of colonoscopic and sigmoidoscopic procedures for perforations was 4. Therapeutic procedures show a delay in presentation and diagnosis compared with diagnostic procedures. Of the 35 perforations, 26 (74%) occurred in the sigmoid colon.

CONCLUSION

Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a serious but rare complication of colonoscopy. A perforation risk of 0.12% was found. The perforation risk was higher for colonoscopic procedures than for sigmoidoscopic procedures. The sigmoid colon is the area at greatest risk for perforation. Immediate operative management, preferably primary repair and sometimes resection, appears to be a good strategy for most patients.

Laparoscopic treatment of endoscopic sigmoid colon perforation: a case report and literature review

Perforation of the colon after colonoscopy is a rare but potentially lethal complication. It usually occurs when endoscopy is performed for therapeutic purposes. In these cases the election of the best treatment is difficult and still controversial. Laparoscopy is a new approach for diagnosis and treatment of this condition. We report a case of a patient who was initially treated laparoscopically after a colonoscopic perforation. A postoperative leak was detected and the patient underwent open surgery. Possible therapeutic approaches and a literature review are discussed.