Colonoscopic perforations: a retrospective review

The causes, and impact, of colonoscopic perforation for endoscopists: lessons from a qualitative interview study

INTRODUCTION

Safety and the avoidance of adverse events are crucial in patient care. A number of explanatory variables for the serious adverse event of colonoscopic perforation have been identified; however, the context in which perforation occurs has largely been overlooked, as too has the subsequent impact on the colonoscopist. This study examined the human and environmental factors associated with colonoscopic perforations, along with colonoscopists' reactions to these, with a view to informing strategies for safer practice and clinician support.

METHODS

This qualitative study explored the experiences of colonoscopists who reported a previous colonoscopic perforation. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 11 colonoscopists, recruited through professional networks. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Human and environmental factors contributing to perforation included colonoscopist fatigue, time pressure and equipment failure. Four distinct stages were identified in colonoscopists' reactions to perforation: ' The Perforation Realisation ' comprising a range of strong and powerful emotions; ' The Consequences ' involving feelings of personal responsibility, self-blame, fear of repercussion and vulnerability; ' Acceptance and Refocus ' comprising a period of coming to terms with the perforation; and finally ' Reflection and Learning ' where the colonoscopist reflected on the case and applied learning to their future practice.

CONCLUSION

This study examines colonoscopists' personal experiences of perforations. It identifies the stages that colonoscopists experience after causing a perforation, and some of the broader contextual factors that can lead to these potentially preventable adverse events. The data suggest the need for greater emotional and pastoral support for endoscopists when such events occur.

A Case of Pneumoperitoneum after Colonoscopy without Frank Perforation

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

Quality improvement project on the development of a management algorithm for iatrogenic perforations and the long-term impact on physician knowledge

Background and study aims  Acute iatrogenic endoscopic perforations (AIEPs) can have high morbidity and mortality, especially colonic perforations. Knowledge of diagnosis and AIEP management can improve patient care. The aims of this study were to: develop an evidence-based AIEP management algorithm; study its short-term and long-term impact on physician knowledge; and evaluate physician knowledge using hypothetical clinical scenarios. Methods  An institutional AIEP management algorithm was created using the most current recommendations from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Input from advanced endoscopists, nurses, and anesthesiologists was also obtained. We assessed change in physician knowledge using a 10-item questionnaire before (pretest), a standardized one-page AIEP educational material and algorithm immediately after (post-test) to test short-term retention, and 6 months later (6-month reassessment) to test long-term retention. With the 6-month reassessment, two clinical scenarios based on real AIEP were presented to evaluate application of knowledge. Results  Twenty-eight subjects (8 gastroenterology fellows and 20 practicing gastroenterologists) participated in the assessments. Pretest and immediate post-test accuracies were 75 % and 95 % ( P  < 0.01), respectively. Six-month reassessment accuracies were 83.6 %, significantly worse compared to post-test accuracies ( P  < 0.05), but significantly improved compared to pretest accuracies ( P  < 0.05). Accuracies for clinical scenarios #1 and #2 were 67.5 % and 60.3 %, respectively. Fellows had similar accuracies when compared to practicing gastroenterologists. Conclusions  Using standardized methodology and a multidisciplinary approach, an AIEP management algorithm was created to improve patient care and alleviate physician and staff stress. In addition, we showed that a one-page educational document on perforations can significantly improve short-term and long-term physician knowledge, although periodic reeducation is needed.

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.

Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy adverse events in the prospective Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 colorectal cancer screening and surveillance cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data are limited regarding colonoscopy risk during long-term, programmatic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up. We aimed to describe adverse events during follow-up in a colonoscopy screening program after the baseline examination and examine factors associated with increased risk.

METHODS

Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 includes 3121 asymptomatic veterans aged 50 to 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997. Periprocedure adverse events requiring significant intervention were defined as major events (other events were minor) and were tracked during follow-up for at least 10 years. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for factors associated with risk of follow-up adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 3727 follow-up examinations in 1983 participants, adverse events occurred in 105 examinations (2.8%) in 93 individuals, including 22 major and 87 minor events (examinations may have had >1 event). Incidence of major events (per 1000 examinations) remained relatively stable over time, with 6.1 events at examination 2, 4.8 at examination 3, and 7.2 at examination 4. Examinations with major events included 1 perforation, 3 GI bleeds requiring intervention, and 17 cardiopulmonary events. History of prior colonoscopic adverse events was associated with increased risk of events (major or minor) during follow-up (OR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term programmatic screening and surveillance was safe, as major events were rare during follow-up. However, serious cardiopulmonary events were the most common major events. These results highlight the need for detailed assessments of comorbid conditions during routine clinical practice, which could help inform individual decisions regarding the utility of ongoing colonoscopy follow-up.

Small bowel perforation caused by thermal injury during colonic polypectomy: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforation is a known uncommon complication of colonoscopy. The perforation usually occurs in the colon itself. Rarely, colonoscopic procedures can also cause the perforations of the small intestine.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSES

We describe the case of a 70-year-old man who experienced abdominal pain several hours after electrical polypectomy in the transverse colon. Urgent abdominal computed tomography scans showed a few bubbles on the frontal surface around the liver and a little extraluminal free air in the upper abdomen. Urgent exploratory laparotomy revealed a round perforation with a diameter of approximately 5 mm in the ileum 80 cm proximal to the ileocecal valve, accompanied by the outflow of intestinal contents. A small bowel perforation by thermal injury was diagnosed during colonic polypectomy.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

The ileal perforation was repaired primarily after debridement of the perforation site and abdominal cavity. The patient recovered well after surgery. Histopathological examination of the perforation site demonstrated inflammatory necrosis and infiltration of inflammatory cells.

LESSONS

Small bowel perforation should be considered after colonoscopic procedures although the incidence is exceedingly rare. Urgent exploratory laparotomy is warranted when a visceral perforation is identified after colonoscopy.

Adverse Events Associated with Routine Colonoscopy in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although colonoscopy has been widely performed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), studies on the safety of routine colonoscopy, including bowel preparation and sedation, in these patients are limited. This study aimed to investigate the safety of colonoscopy in patients with ESRD who underwent peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 538 patients with ESRD who underwent colonoscopy between 2010 and 2020. We compared the incidence of adverse events (AEs) between the ESRD group and a propensity score-matched control group of healthy adults. Cardiovascular/pulmonary and procedure-related AEs were analyzed. We also compared the rates of AEs between patients who underwent PD or HD.

RESULTS

The overall rate of AEs was 5.7% in patients with ESRD, which was significantly higher than that in healthy adults (0.6%, P < 0.001). All AEs were cardiovascular/pulmonary in nature, but no perforation or bleeding occurred. Most AEs were not severe and resolved with medical treatment. The incidence of AEs was higher in the HD group than in the PD group, but the difference was not significant (6.1% vs. 3.5%, respectively, P = 0.451). In the HD group, patients with AEs were significantly older than those without AEs (P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of colonoscopy-related AEs in patients with ESRD on dialysis was higher than that in healthy adults, but most AEs were not severe. Routine colonoscopy may be safely performed in patients with ESRD regardless of the method of dialysis, but more carefully in older patients on HD.

Colonic Wall Injuries After Endoscopic Resection: Still a Major Complication? A Retrospective Analysis of 3782 Endoscopic Resections

BACKGROUND

Colonic wall injuries are the most feared adverse events of endoscopic resections among endoscopists. The implementation of endoscopic closure has offered a reliable way to treat such injuries and, thus, has decreased their overall morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study is to assess the characteristics and outcomes of colonic wall injuries after endoscopic resection, focusing on the endoscopic treatment of these injuries.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

Patients treated in the Central Endoscopy Unit of the Medical Centre Mannheim were included.

PATIENTS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent endoscopic mucosal resection and snare polypectomy in our center between 2004 and 2019 and isolated the resection-related colonic wall injuries. These were divided into 3 groups: group A, endoscopically treated early colonic wall injuries; group B, nonendoscopically treated early colonic wall injuries; and group C, late perforations.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Periprocedural factors and treatment outcomes were analyzed and compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

Of 3782 endoscopic resections, we identified 177 cases of colonic wall injuries, of which 148 were identified and treated endoscopically (group A), 9 were identified during the procedure but could not be treated endoscopically (group B), and 20 were late perforations (group C). Endoscopic treatment with use of clips had a technical success rate of 94.3%, while the clinical success rate of technically complete endoscopic closure was 92.6%. Twenty-two percent of all colonic wall injuries required surgical treatment; the type and outcomes of surgery were similar in all groups. Overall hospital stay was significantly lower in group A.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of the study is its retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic closure with the use of clips is a safe and feasible treatment for intraprocedurally identified colonic wall injuries and is associated with significantly decreased necessity of surgery, morbidity, and hospital stay. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B755.

LESIONES DE PARED COLNICA POSTERIOR A RESECCIN ENDOSCPICA ES AN UNA COMPLICACIN IMPORTANTE ANLISIS RETROSPECTIVO DE RESECCIONES ENDOSCPICAS

ANTECEDENTES:Las lesiones de la pared del colon son los eventos adversos más temidos por los endoscopistas durante las resecciones endoscópicas. La implementación del cierre endoscópico ha ofrecido una forma confiable de tratar tales lesiones y, por lo tanto, disminuyendo su morbilidad y mortalidad general.OBJETIVOS:El objetivo de nuestro estudio es evaluar las características y resultados de las lesiones de la pared colónica posterior a la resección endoscópica, centrándose en su tratamiento endoscópico.DISEÑO:Es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLÍNICO:Se incluyeron pacientes tratados en la Unidad Central de Endoscopia del Centro Médico de Mannheim.PACIENTES:Se analizaron retrospectivamente todos los pacientes sometidos a resección endoscópica de la mucosa y polipectomía en asa en nuestro centro entre 2004 y 2019, seleccionando las lesiones de la pared colónica relacionadas a la resección. Estas se dividieron en tres grupos: Grupo A: lesiones tempranas de la pared colónica tratadas endoscópicamente; Grupo B: lesiones tempranas de la pared colónica no tratadas endoscópicamente; y Grupo C: perforaciones tardías.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Se analizaron y compararon los factores relacionados al procedimiento y los resultados del tratamiento entre los tres grupos.RESULTADOS:De 3782 resecciones endoscópicas identificamos 177 casos de lesiones de la pared colónica, de los cuales 148 fueron identificados y tratados endoscópicamente (Grupo A), 9 fueron identificados durante el procedimiento pero no pudieron ser tratados endoscópicamente (Grupo B) y 20 fueron perforaciones tardías. (Grupo C). El tratamiento endoscópico con el uso de clips tuvo una tasa de éxito técnico del 94,3%, mientras que la tasa de éxito clínico del cierre endoscópico técnicamente completo fue del 92,6%. El veintidós por ciento de todas las lesiones de la pared colónica requirieron tratamiento quirúrgico; el tipo y los resultados de la cirugía fueron los mismos en todos los grupos. La estancia hospitalaria global fue significativamente menor en el grupo A.LIMITACIONES:La principal limitación del estudio es su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:El cierre endoscópico con el uso de clips es un tratamiento seguro y factible para las lesiones de la pared colónica identificadas durante el procedimiento y se asocia con una disminución significativa de la necesidad de cirugía, morbilidad y de estancia hospitalaria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B755.

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.

Use of over-the-scope clips in the colon in clinical practice: results from a German administrative database

BACKGROUND : The efficacy and safety of over-the-scope (OTS) clips in the colon is limited. This study aimed to evaluate OTS clip use in the colon in routine colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using administrative data from a large health insurance company, patients with OTS clip placement during colonoscopy were identified and analyzed by specific administrative codes. Indication for OTS clipping was analyzed, and follow-up was evaluated for surgical and repeat endoscopic interventions.

RESULTS

In 505 patients, indications for OTS clips were iatrogenic perforations (n = 80; Group A), polypectomy (n = 315; Group B), colonic bleeding (n = 51; Group C), and various underlying diseases (n = 59; Group D). In 11 Group A patients (13.8 %), surgical interventions occurred, mostly within 24 hours after clipping (n = 9), predominantly overstitching (n = 8). OTS clipping during polypectomy (Group B) was for complications (e. g. bleeding in 27 %) or was applied prophylactically. Only five patients required early surgery, three of whom had colorectal cancer. In four Group C patients (7.8 %), surgical resections were performed (persistent bleeding n = 1, colorectal cancer n = 2), while six patients underwent early repeat colonoscopy for recurrent bleeding. During further follow-up (days 11-30), 17 patients underwent resection for colonic neoplasms (n = 12) or persistent bleeding (n = 4), but only one case could be directly traced back to local OTS clip complication.

CONCLUSION

Colonic OTS clipping appears safe and effective in selected indications and complications in clinical routine but must be anatomically and technically feasible, avoiding overuse.

Impacts of age and sedation on cardiocerebrovascular adverse events after diagnostic GI endoscopy: a nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data are limited regarding the impact of age and sedation on cardiocerebrovascular disease (CCD) adverse events after GI endoscopy. We investigated the incidence of and risk factors for CCD adverse events after diagnostic GI endoscopy and the impact of age and sedation on these unfavorable outcomes.

METHODS

In this nationwide population-based study, the incidence of and risk factors for newly diagnosed CCD within 14 days after diagnostic endoscopy were analyzed using Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service data from January to December 2015.

RESULTS

Among 1,943,150 subjects, CCD adverse events occurred in approximately 2.23% within 14 days after endoscopy. According to the performance of sedation during endoscopy (60.1% nonsedation vs 39.9% sedation, midazolam alone [96.4%]), the incidence rates of CCD adverse events (per 10,000 persons) were 275.8 versus 302.8 for EGD, 116.9 versus 143.8 for colonoscopy, and 230.4 versus 243.2 for EGD + colonoscopy, respectively. On multivariate analysis, older age (70-99 years) and sedation were independent risk factors for CCD adverse events. Regarding CCD risk stratified by age and sedation, older age had a significant impact on CCD adverse events in individuals who underwent EGD only or EGD + colonoscopy, but sedation did not. However, both older age and sedation had considerable influence on CCD adverse events in individuals who underwent colonoscopy only. Sedation during endoscopy was significantly associated with minor but not major CCD adverse events. CCD adverse events were significantly higher for inpatients.

CONCLUSION

CCD adverse events after diagnostic endoscopy were significantly frequent in individuals with older age (70-99 years) and/or sedation during endoscopy. Stratification by age and sedation shows that the impact of these 2 factors on CCD adverse events differs according to endoscopy type.

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.

Colonoscopy adverse events: are we getting the full picture?

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy adverse events (AEs) are commonly underreported and standardised reporting is rarely used. We aimed to investigate AEs associated with colonoscopy in a real world setting, using the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of AEs related to outpatient colonoscopies performed in the North Denmark Region from 2015 to 2018 identified AEs from readmission within eight days or death within 30 days of colonoscopy. AEs were investigated in electronic health records and categorised, attributed and graded according to the ASGE lexicon.

RESULTS

Of 49,445 colonoscopies performed, 1141 were potentially associated with AEs (23.07‰). Electronic health record review left 489 AEs attributed to colonoscopy (9.9‰); categorised as cardiovascular (0.65‰), pulmonary (0.36‰), thromboembolic (0.10‰), instrumental incl. perforations (0.99‰), bleeding (3.07‰), infection (0.87‰), drug reactions (0.04‰), pain (2.00‰), integument (damage to skin/bones) (0.34‰) and other (1.62‰) AEs. Ten (0.20‰) AEs were fatal, but only one was procedure related (perforation). All shearing force perforations occurred in the sigmoid colon. Most polypectomy perforations occurred in the caecum (60%).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy carries important procedure and non-procedure related risks. Non-procedure related AEs are likely underreported. Better attention to patients with pre-existing diseases and further colonoscopist training may lower AE rates. A standardised colonoscopy AE reporting system is warranted.

Risks, time trends, and mortality of colonoscopy-induced perforation in hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colonic perforation is a rare complication of colonoscopy and ranges from 0% to 1% in all patients undergoing colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to assess the time trends, risk factors, and mortality associated with colonoscopy-induced perforation (CIP) in hospitalized patients as the data are limited.

METHODS

Data are obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to identify hospitalized patients between 2005 and 2014 that had CIP. Various factors like age and gender were assessed for association with CIP, followed by univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 2 651 109 patients underwent inpatient colonoscopy between 2005 and 2014, and 4567 (0.2%) of the patients had CIP. Overall, incidence of CIP has increased from 2005 to 2014 (0.1% to 0.3%) (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for CIP was highest in Caucasian race (OR: 1.49 [1.09, 2.06]), followed by after polypectomy, history of inflammatory bowel disease, end-stage renal disease, and age > 65 years (OR [95% CI] of 1.35 [1.23, 1.47], 1.34 [1.17, 1.53], 1.28 [1.02, 1.62], and 1.21 [1.11, 1.33], respectively) (all P < 0.05). CIP group had 33% less obesity (OR [95% CI]: 0.77 [0.65-0.9], P = 0.002) and 13-fold higher mortality (0.5% vs 8.1%) (P < 0.001) as compared to patients without CIP. The CIP-associated mortality ranged from 2% to 8% and remained stable throughout the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the risk of CIP was highest in elderly patients, Caucasians, those with inflammatory bowel disease, end-stage renal disease, and after polypectomy. Recognizing the factors associated with CIP may lead to informed discussion about risks and benefits of inpatient colonoscopy.

[Medical Dispute Related to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Complications: Prevention and Management]

Because gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy examinations are being performed increasingly frequently, the rate of detection of cancer and of precancerous lesions has increased. Moreover, development of more advanced endoscopic technologies has expanded the indications for, and thus frequency of, therapeutic endoscopic procedures. However, the incidence of complications associated with diagnostic or therapeutic GI endoscopy has also increased. The complications associated with GI endoscopy can be ameliorated by endoscopic or conservative treatment, but caution is needed as some of the more serious complications, such as perforation, can lead to death. In this chapter, we review the possible complications of GI endoscopy and discuss methods for their prevention and treatment.

Management of colonoscopic perforation: a systematic review and treatment algorithm

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review is to evaluate and summarize the current strategies used in the management of colonoscopic perforations as well as propose a modern treatment algorithm.

METHODS

Articles published between January 2004 and January 2019 were screened. A total of 167 reports were identified in combined literature search, of which 61 articles were selected after exclusion of duplicate and unrelated articles. Only studies that reported on the management of endoscopic perforation in an adult population were retrieved for review. Case reports and case series of 8 patients or less were not considered. Ultimately, 19 articles were considered eligible for review.

RESULTS

A total of 744 cases of colonoscopic perforations were reported in 19 major articles. The cause of perforation was mentioned in 16 articles. Colonoscopic perforations were reported as a consequence of diagnostic colonoscopies in 222 cases and therapeutic colonoscopies in 248 cases. The site of perforation was mentioned in 486 cases. Sigmoid colon was the predominant site followed by the cecum. The management of colonoscopic perforations was reported in a total of 741 patients. Surgical intervention was employed in 75% of the patients, of these 15% were laparoscopic and 85% required laparotomy. The predominant surgical intervention was primary repair.

CONCLUSION

Management strategies of colon perforations depend upon the etiology, size, severity, location, available expertise, and general health status. Usually, peritonitis, sepsis, or hemodynamic compromise requires immediate surgical management. Endoscopic techniques are under continuous evolution. Newer developments have offered high success rate with least amount of post-procedure complications. However, there is a need for further studies to compare the newer endoscopic techniques in terms of success rate, cost, complications, and the affected part of colon.

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.

Endoscopic Management of Iatrogenic Colon Perforation

Colon perforations are difficult to resolve because they occur unexpectedly and infrequently. If the clinician is unprepared or lacks training in dealing with perforations, the clinical prognosis will be affected, which can lead to legal issues. We describe here the proper approach to the management of perforations, including deciding on endoscopic or surgical treatment, selection of endoscopic devices, endoscopic closure procedures, and general management of perforations that occur during diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy.

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.

Patient-reported minor adverse events after colonoscopy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the incidence and nature of minor adverse events (MAEs) after colonoscopy, and response rates to questionnaires concerning MAEs in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed and Embase. Predictor variables were patient-reported MAEs after colonoscopy. The outcome was frequency and types of MAEs and the patients' response rate to questionnaires after colonoscopy. Quality assessment for potential risk of bias and level of evidence was evaluated using the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines.

RESULTS

Seven prospective cohorts were included with a pooled total of 6172 participants. Patients undergoing colonoscopy had a response rate to questionnaires ranging from 64% to 100%, with a mean of 81%. One-third of the patients experienced MAEs, most prominently in the first 1-2 weeks after colonoscopy, and less common at 30 days post colonoscopy. The most frequently reported MAEs were abdominal pain, bloating and abdominal discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, patients undergoing colonoscopy have a high response rate to questionnaires about MAEs. MAEs after colonoscopy are commonly seen. High age and score of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, female gender and duration of procedure seem to be associated with a higher risk of MAEs, whereas adequate sedation seems to decreases the risk. MAEs after colonoscopy seems to be underreported in the current literature and the existing evidence is based on inhomogeneous reports. In the current study, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. There is a need for larger scale studies addressing the MAEs patients experience in conjunction with a colonoscopy. Furthermore, the assessment of the MAEs should rely on questionnaires tested for validity, comprehensibility and reliability, to reflect the patient-reported experience of a colonoscopy as precise as possible.

Adverse events related to colonoscopy: Global trends and future challenges

Colonoscopy is a widely used method for diagnosing and treating colonic disease. The number of colonoscopies is increasing worldwide, and concerns about associated adverse events are growing. Large-scale studies using big data for post-colonoscopy complications have been reported. A colon perforation is a severe complication with a relatively high mortality rate. The perforation rate, as reported in large studies (≥ 50,000 colonoscopies) published since 2000, ranges from 0.005-0.085%. The trend in the overall perforation rate in the past 15 years has not changed significantly. Bleeding is a more common adverse event than perforation. Recent large studies (≥ 50,000 colonoscopies) have reported post-colonoscopy bleeding occurring in 0.001-0.687% of cases. Most studies about adverse events related to colonoscopy were performed in the West, and relatively few studies have been conducted in the East. The incidence of post-colonoscopy complications increases in elderly patients or patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. It is important to use a unified definition and refined data to overcome the limitations of previous studies. In addition, a structured training program for endoscopists and a systematic national management program are needed to reduce post-colonoscopy complications. In this review, we discuss the current trends in colonoscopy related to adverse events, as well as the challenges to be addressed through future research.

Pediatric Elective Diagnostic Procedure Complications: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Increased access to endoscopic procedures have entrenched these investigative tools in routine pediatric gastroenterology practice. Patient outcomes following endoscopy therefore are topical in the decision toward endoscopy. We studied the likelihood and patient characteristics of children admitted following ambulatory endoscopy.

METHODS

Hospitalization data were obtained from the Pediatric Hospital Information System including 49 tertiary children's hospitals in the USA. Children who underwent ambulatory diagnostic endoscopy between October 1, 2005 and September 25, 2015 were included. The primary outcomes were post-procedure events resulting in unplanned admission (not for inflammatory bowel disease management) or emergency room visit within 5 days. Unadjusted, univariate analyses were followed by multivariable analysis of the associations between patient characteristics and outcome using the R statistical package, v. 3.2.3.

RESULTS

During the study period, 217 817 patients underwent diagnostic endoscopy; 101 (0.05%) patients were admitted directly; 1314 (0.60%) were admitted to the same facility's emergency department with either a respiratory or a gastrointestinal complication as a primary diagnosis within 5 days. None of the procedures resulted in death; female patients were more likely to experience adverse outcomes (P < 0.001), as were patients from an urban setting (P = 0.0004), whereas White, non-Hispanic patients were less likely to represent (P < 0.0001). Patients with chronic comorbidities were more likely to experience complications. The most frequent diagnoses at admission were abdominal pain (30.5%), other gastroenterologic processes (26.8%), respiratory disorders (17.1%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (8.3%), and fever (4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory pediatric endoscopy is safe; significant adverse outcomes are rare but more likely in female, non-White or Hispanic patients and in patients with significant chronic comorbidities.

Pediatric Endoscopic Procedure Complications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes the current body of research, define high-risk patients and endoscopic processes, and outline evidence-based countermeasures aimed at minimizing the incidence of complications during endoscopy in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Significant complications of endoscopy requiring emergency department or inpatient admission in otherwise healthy children are unusual, but more common with therapeutic procedures; risk from procedures increases incrementally with preoperative coexisting conditions. Duodenal hematoma is predominantly a pediatric endoscopic complication and is more likely in hematology-oncology patients. Air embolism is a well-defined endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complication in adults and is likely to increase in children with increased performance of pediatric ERCP. Increased physician expertise is the most often proposed countermeasure, especially in the context of endoscopy complications in the higher-risk patient and procedure. Endoscopy in children remains a very safe group of procedures, although a more detailed understanding of risk factors and ideal training and practice organization is lacking.

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.

Colonoscopic Perforations

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colon cancer screening. It has led to a decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer mortality. Colon perforation is a feared complication of this procedure with high morbidity and substantial mortality. Due to the high volume of colonoscopies performed, the absolute number of colonoscopic perforations is relatively high. It leads to a substantial cost to the patient and the health system. Understanding the mechanisms and the risk factors may help in preventing perforation. Traditionally, a laparotomy with creation of a stoma was used to address this complication. However, minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy and endoluminal repairs are being used more commonly now. More surgeons are favoring primary anastomosis (with or without a diverting loop ileostomy) than a Hartmann procedure.

Colonoscopy-induced right superior rectal artery tear: A case report

•

Colonoscopy examination induced mesentery injury and subsequent massive hemoperitoneum is rare.

•

Angiography and computer tomography study help to identify bleeder and control the bleeder with highly selective embolization.

•

Non surgical intervention of mesentery artery injury is feasible under superselective angiography embolization.

Introduction

Colonoscopy is a well-accepted procedure applied worldwide in diagnosis and management of colon lesions. The incidence of reported complications is not rare.

Presentation

A 79-year-old man with postcolonoscopy intraperitoneal bleeding secondary to superior rectal artery injury. He received computer tomogram and angiogram study to confirmed bleeder from right superior rectal artery and subsequently managed with embolization and operation.

Discussion

This is the second case report in the literatures of mesentery tear and the first case with massive hemoperitoneum.

Conclusion

Identification and careful evaluation are crucial for successful diagnosis and treatment in cases such as this after colonoscopy.

The Present Status of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation and Its Value in the Elderly

OPINION STATEMENT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article will review current literature describing fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in the treatment of various diseases, and its potential role in elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years).

RECENT FINDINGS

Research on FMT has blossomed in the last decade and its pivotal role in the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been recognized by the American College of Gastroenterology in the latest guidelines. There is also emerging evidence that FMT may be beneficial in the treatment of severe and/or complicated CDI refractory to medical therapy, resulting in decreased rates of colectomy and mortality. In the elderly, CDI is associated with markedly higher rates of mortality and colectomy; outcomes are even worse when patients have underlying inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). While the majority of patients who receive FMT for CDI are older, only a handful of studies focused specifically on FMT treatment outcomes and safety in this age group. Current data corroborate the efficacy and safety profile of FMT, while also supporting its use for recurrent, severe, and/or complicated CDI in the elderly population. FMT is recommended for the treatment of recurrent, severe, and/or complicated CDI in patients older than 65 years of age. It may be prudent to offer FMT earlier in the disease course, possibly after just the second recurrence and for the first episode of severe CDI to avert complications including colectomy and end-organ failure that elderly patients are more prone to developing.

The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in the emergency departments worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs are early recognition, adequate source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Prompt resuscitation of patients with ongoing sepsis is of utmost important. In hospitals worldwide, non-acceptance of, or lack of access to, accessible evidence-based practices and guidelines result in overall poorer outcome of patients suffering IAIs. The aim of this paper is to promote global standards of care in IAIs and update the 2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections.

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.

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.

Factors predicting adverse events associated with therapeutic colonoscopy for colorectal neoplasia: a retrospective nationwide study in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few large studies have evaluated the adverse events associated with therapeutic colonoscopy for colorectal neoplasia, including bleeding and bowel perforation. Our aim was to investigate factors associated with these events, using a Japanese national inpatient database.

METHODS

We extracted data from the nationwide Japan Diagnosis Procedure Combination database for patients who underwent therapeutic colonoscopy for colorectal neoplasia between 2013 and 2014. Therapeutic colonoscopy included endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), EMR, and polypectomy. Outcomes included bleeding, perforation, cerebro-cardiovascular events, and in-hospital death. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with bleeding and bowel perforation.

RESULTS

We analyzed 345,546 patients, including 16,812 (4.9%) who underwent ESD, 219,848 (63.6%) who underwent EMR, and 108,886 (31.5%) who underwent polypectomy. The rates of bleeding, bowel perforation, cardiovascular events, cerebrovascular events, and death were 32.5, 0.47, 0.05, 0.88, and 1.32 per 1000 patients, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, a higher bleeding rate was associated with being male, comorbid diseases, ESD, tumor size ≥2 cm, and use of drugs including low-dose aspirin, thienopyridines, non-aspirin antiplatelet drugs, novel oral anticoagulants, warfarin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids. A higher bowel perforation rate was associated with being male, renal disease, ESD, tumor size ≥2 cm, and drugs including warfarin, NSAIDs, and steroids.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of adverse events after therapeutic colonoscopy was low, several patient-related factors were significantly associated with bleeding and bowel perforation.

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.

Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies

OBJECTIVES

Many studies around the world addressed the post-colonoscopy complications, but their pooled prevalence and time trends are unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to examine the pooled prevalence of post-colonoscopy complications ("perforation", "bleeding", and "mortality"), stratified by colonoscopy indication. Temporal variability in the complication rate was assessed.

METHODS

We queried Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library for population-based studies examining post-colonoscopy complications (within 30 days), performed from 2001 to 2015 and published by 1 December 2015. We determined pooled prevalence of perforations, post-colonoscopy bleeding, post-polypectomy bleeding, and mortality.

RESULTS

We retrieved 1,074 studies, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, pooled prevalences for perforation, post-colonoscopy bleeding, and mortality were 0.5/1,000 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.7), 2.6/1,000 (95% CI 1.7-3.7), and 2.9/100,000 (95% CI 1.1-5.5) colonoscopies. Colonoscopy with polypectomy was associated with a perforation rate of 0.8/1,000 (95% CI 0.6-1.0) and a post-polypectomy bleeding rate of 9.8/1,000 (95% CI 7.7-12.1). Complication rate was lower for screening/surveillance than for diagnostic examinations. Time-trend analysis showed that post-colonoscopy bleeding declined from 6.4 to 1.0/1,000 colonoscopies, whereas the perforation and mortality rates remained stable from 2001 to 2015. Overall, considerable heterogeneity was observed in most of the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Worldwide, the post-colonoscopy complication rate remained stable or even declined over the past 15 years. The findings of this meta-analysis encourage continued efforts to achieve and maintain safety targets in colonoscopy practice.

Perforation of the sigmoid colon and massive ischemia of the small intestine caused by amyloidosis associated with multiple myeloma: a case report

Amyloidosis is a metabolic disease that results in organ dysfunction because of the deposition of amyloid proteins in body tissues and organs. Amyloid accumulation in the gastrointestinal tract can lead to severe complications with poor outcomes. We report a case showing simultaneous perforation of the sigmoid colon and massive segmental intestinal ischemia caused by amyloidosis associated with multiple myeloma. A 75-year-old woman presented to the emergency department in our hospital with a chief complaint of abdominal pain. Results of several examinations indicated sigmoid colon perforation and acute generalized peritonitis. She underwent an emergency exploratory laparotomy. Operative finding was a perforation of the sigmoid colon and many segmental discoloration sites appeared intraoperatively in the small intestine. A loop colostomy was performed by employing a double-barrel ileostomy with a massive resection of the segmentally discolored small bowel. Pathological findings suggested that the causative factor was amyloidosis with multiple myeloma. The patient was successfully treated with adequate surgery and with melphalan and prednisone after the operation. Meticulous and appropriate treatment for severe complications involving amyloidosis associated with multiple myeloma can prevent a fatal outcome.

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.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

PRESENTATION OF CASE

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSION

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

Management of bleeding and perforation after colonoscopy

Bleeding is a relatively rare complication occurring mainly after snare polypectomy. The majority of cases can be managed successfully by endoscopic means leaving very few cases which will ultimately need an operation. Colonic perforation, on the other hand is a serious complication that requires intensive and careful management. Prompt recognition of the perforation during the procedure allows, in selected cases, immediate endoscopic closure with an uneventful and full recovery followed by close monitoring and surgical management in case of clinical deterioration. The criteria for the right selection of perforation cases amenable to endoscopic treatment do still need to be confirmed by prospective studies and further experience is required before a standard algorithm on the endoscopic management of perforations is developed.

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.