Rupture of the spleen after colonoscopy: a life-threatening complication

Splenic artery embolisation for splenic injury during colonoscopy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Splenic injury due to colonoscopy is rare, but has high mortality. While historically treated conservatively for low-grade injuries or with splenectomy for high-grade injuries, splenic artery embolisation is increasingly utilised, reflecting modern treatment guidelines for external blunt trauma. This systematic review evaluates outcomes of published cases of splenic injury due to colonoscopy treated with splenic artery embolisation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of published articles concerning splenic injury during colonoscopy treated primarily with splenic artery embolisation, splenectomy, or splenorrhaphy from 1977 to 2022. Datapoints included demographics, past surgical history, indication for colonoscopy, delay to diagnosis, treatment, grade of injury, splenic artery embolisation location, splenic preservation (salvage), and mortality.

RESULTS

The 30 patients treated with splenic artery embolisation were of mean age 65 (SD 9) years and 67% female, with 83% avoiding splenectomy and 6.7% mortality. Splenic artery embolisation was proximal to the splenic hilum in 81%. The 163 patients treated with splenectomy were of mean age 65 (SD 11) years and 66% female, with 5.5% mortality. Three patients treated with splenorrhaphy of median age 60 (range 59-70) years all avoided splenectomy with no mortality. There was no difference in mortality between splenic artery embolisation and splenectomy cohorts (p = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Splenic artery embolisation is an effective treatment option in splenic injury due to colonoscopy. Given the known benefits of splenic salvage compared to splenectomy, including preserved immune function against encapsulated organisms, low cost, and shorter hospital length of stay, embolisation should be incorporated into treatment pathways for splenic injury due to colonoscopy in suitable patients.

Acute colonoscopy-induced splenic rupture presenting to the emergency department

Splenic rupture due to colonoscopy is a rarely reported event in the emergency medicine literature. Patients experiencing such an occurrence are likely to report to the emergency department. This paper documents an 84-year-old female who presented to the emergency department with abdominal pain and nausea less than 24 hours following a colonoscopy. An abdominal ultrasound revealed splenomegaly and free fluid. An abdominal computed tomography was significant for a splenic laceration. She underwent radiologic guided embolization and recovered without incident. Emergency medicine physicians need to consider splenic rupture as a differential in patients presenting after colonoscopy with abdominal pain.

Endovascular treatment of active splenic bleeding after colonoscopy: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy is reported to be a safe procedure that is routinely performed for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases. Splenic rupture is considered to be a rare complication with high mortality and morbidity that requires immediate diagnosis and management. Nonoperative management (NOM), surgical treatment (ST), and, more recently, proximal splenic artery embolization (PSAE) have been proposed as treatment options. The goal of this study was to assess whether PSAE is safe even in high-grade ruptures.

METHODS

We report two rare cases of post colonoscopy splenic rupture. A systematic review of the literature from 2002 to 2010 (first reported case of PSAE) was performed and the three types of treatment compared.

RESULTS

All patients reviewed (77 of 77) presented with intraperitoneal hemorrhage due to isolated splenic trauma. Splenic rupture was high-grade in most patients when grading was possible. Six of 77 patients (7.8 %) were treated with PSAE, including the 2 cases reported herein. Fifty-seven patients (74 %) underwent ST. NOM was attempted first in 25 patients with a high failure rate (11 of 25 [44 %]) and requiring a salvage procedure, such as PSAE or ST. Previous surgery (31 of 59 patients), adhesions (10 of 13), diagnostic colonoscopies (49 of 71), previous biopsies or polypectomies (31 of 57) and female sex (56 of 77) were identified as risk factors. In contrast, splenomegaly (0 of 77 patients), medications that increase the risk of bleeding (13 of 30) and difficult colonoscopies (16 of 51) were not identified as risk factors. PSAE was safe and effective even in elderly patients with comorbidities and those taking medications that increase the risk of bleeding, and the length of the hospital stay was similar to that after ST.

CONCLUSION

We propose a treatment algorithm based on clinical and radiological criteria. Because of the high failure rate after NOM, PSAE should be the treatment of choice to manage grade I through IV splenic ruptures after colonoscopy in hemodynamically stabilized patients.

Splenic injury during colonoscopy--a complication that warrants urgent attention

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a safe procedure that is performed routinely worldwide. There is, however, a small but significant risk of splenic injury that is often under-recognized. Due to a lack of awareness about this injury, the diagnosis may be delayed, which can lead to an increased risk of morbidity as well as mortality. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the medical literature on colonoscopy-associated splenic injury and describes the clinical presentation and management of this rare but potentially life-threatening complication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search identified 102 patients worldwide, including patients from our experience, with splenic injury during colonoscopy. A meta-regression analysis was completed using a mixed generalized linear model for repeated measures to identify risk factors for this rare complication.

RESULTS

A total of 75 articles were identified and 102 patients were studied. The majority of the papers were in English (92 %). Only 23.4 % of patients (26/102) were reported prior to the year 2000. Among the patients reported after the year 2000, the majority (84.2 %, 64/76) were reported after 2005. There were more females (76.5 %), median age was 65 years (range, 29-90 years), and most of the colonoscopies were performed without difficulty (66.6 %). Nearly 67 % of patients presented within 24 h of colonoscopy with complaints ranging from abdominal pain to dizziness. The most common symptom was left upper quadrant pain (58 %), and CT scan was found to be the most sensitive tool for diagnosis. Seventy-three patients underwent operative intervention; 96 % of these were treated with splenectomy. Hemoglobin drop of more than 3 gm/dL was identified as the only significant predictor of operative intervention. The overall mortality rate was 5 %.

CONCLUSION

Splenic injury during colonoscopy is rare; however, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Splenic injury warrants a high degree of clinical suspicion critical to prompt diagnosis, and early surgical consultation is warranted.

Medico-legal considerations in a case of splenic injury that occurred during colonoscopy

Colonoscopy has became the gold standard diagnostic and therapeutic treatment for rectum and colon diseases. The splenic injury is a rare complication of colonoscopy and relatively few cases (less than 70) have been reported in the literature so far. Here we present a case of splenic rupture identified in an 80 year-old man few hours after an apparently uneventful colonoscopy. Acknowledging a causal relationship between the lesion and the diagnostic procedures, we discuss the possible medico-legal implications with regard to professional liability considering the exceptional nature of such an event and the stance recently taken by the Italian law.

Splenic rupture after screening colonoscopy: case report and literature review

Splenic rupture is a rare complication after colonoscopy, and to date there are only 46 reported cases in the English-language literature. Presented is a case report of splenic rupture after screening colonoscopy that resulted in laparotomy and splenectomy within 24 hours of the original procedure. The article covers the hypothesized mechanisms of injury, various precautions to take during colonoscopy, suggested diagnostic algorithm, determining factors in treatment, and vaccine regimen. The article concludes by stating that as the number of colonoscopies increase, so will the prevalence of associated complications, and that physicians are encouraged to understand this paradigm shift.