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

Usefulness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation: a single-center retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal perforation owing to a significant lack of evidence in this field.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 70 patients who underwent emergency surgery for colorectal perforations between January 2017 and December 2023. The surgical outcomes of the patients who underwent open and laparoscopic surgeries were statistically compared. The primary endpoints were postoperative mortality and complications. The secondary endpoints included blood loss, surgical time, length of hospital stay, and 1-year overall survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 28 patients underwent open surgery and 42 underwent laparoscopic surgery. No significant difference was noted in the postoperative mortality or overall rate of severe complications between the two groups. The incidence of superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection was lower in the laparoscopic surgery group (35.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), while the surgical time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (175.6 ± 92.2 min vs. 290.0 ± 102.3 min, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in blood loss, length of hospital stay, or 1-year overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation markedly reduced superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection, with no substantial difference in mortality or severe complications.

Laparoscopic management of iatrogenic colon perforation

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic colon perforation (ICP) due to colonoscopy is a severe complication and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The global estimated incidence of ICP is 0.03% and up to 3% for diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies, respectively. Treatment options include endoscopic repair, conservative therapy, and surgery. Treatment decision is based on the time and the setting of the diagnosis, the type, and location of the perforation, the presence of related pathologies, the clinical status and characteristic of the patient, and surgeon's skills. We present our experience in the treatment of ICPs.

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients suffering from ICP at Bnai-Zion Medical Center between 1/1/2010 and 1/3/2021. Clinical presentation, therapeutic approach, and short-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 51 cases of ICPs. Fourteen (27%) were diagnosed by the gastroenterologist during the procedure, 2 of whom were treated with endoscopic clips. The rest of the patients (72.5%) were diagnosed in the ER after a CT scan. Forty-three patients (84%) went on to operative management: 5 (11%) operations started with laparotomy-all were conducted in the early study period (until 2013). All other operations (88%) started with a diagnostic laparoscopy, 4 of whom (10%) were converted to laparotomy. Out of the 38 laparoscopic cases 29 (80%) were treated with primary suturing. Seven patients went on to colon resection (5 of whom with primary anastomosis). Six patients required ICU admission-with 1/38 (2%) from the laparoscopic cases, and 5/9 (55%) from the laparotomy cases. A total of 49/51 (96%) patients recovered and were discharged after 5 ± 2 for conservative and laparoscopic cases, and 12 ± 9 for open cases.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic treatment of ICP is safe and feasible in most cases. Our data supports a laparoscopic attempt at any such scenario.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colonoscopic perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of colonoscopic perforation is still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LS versus open surgery (OS) for colonoscopic perforation.

METHODS

All clinical trials that compared laparoscopic with OS for colonoscopic perforation published in English were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library searches. A modified scale was used to assess the quality of the literature. We analyzed the age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, type of procedure, size of perforation, operation time, postoperative fasting time, hospital stay, postoperative complication morbidity, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed using weighted mean differences for continuous variables, and odds ratios for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

No eligible randomized trials were identified, but eleven nonrandomized trials were analyzed. In the pooled data of 192 patients who underwent LS and 131 OS, there were no significant differences in age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, perforation size, and operative time between the groups. LS group had shorter time of hospital stay and postoperative fasting time, less postoperative complication morbidity, but there were no significant difference in postoperative mortality rate between LS group and OS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, we conclude that LS is a safe and efficacious technique for colonoscopic perforation, with fewer postoperative complications, less hospital mortality, and faster recovery compared with OS.

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.

Preclinical evaluation of porcine colon resection using hollow core negative curvature fibre delivered ultrafast laser pulses

Ultrashort pulse lasers offer great promise for tissue resection with exceptional precision and minimal thermal damage. Surgery in the bowel requires high precision and minimal necrotic tissue to avoid severe complications such as perforation. The deployment of ultrashort lasers in minimally invasive or endoscopic procedures has been hindered by the lack of suitable optical fibres for high peak powers. However, recent developments of hollow core microstructured fibres provide potential for delivery of such pulses throughout the body. In this study, analysis of laser ablation via a scanning galvanometer on a porcine colon tissue model is presented. A thermally damaged region (<85 μm) and fine depth control of ablation using the pulse energies 46 and 33 μJ are demonstrated. It is further demonstrated that such pulses suitable for precision porcine colon resection can be flexibly delivered via a hollow core negative curvature fibre (HC-NCF) and again ablation depth can be controlled with a thermally damaged region <85 μm. Ablation volumes are comparable to that of early stage lesions in the inner lining of the colon. This study concludes that the combination of ultrashort pulses and flexible fibre delivery via HC-NCF present a viable route to new minimally invasive surgical procedures.

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.

A different type of perforation: appendicitis after colonoscopy

Physicians who perform colonoscopy should consider appendicitis in the differential diagnosis of post procedure abdominal pain. Diagnostic laparoscopy is a safe adjunct for evaluation in patients with suspected perforation after colonoscopy. It is important that all physicians be aware of this complication to ensure prompt diagnosis and intervention.

Colon cancer with perforation

Perforation of the colon is a rare complication for patients with colon cancer and usually requires emergent surgery. The characteristics of perforation differ based on the site of perforation, presenting as either perforation at the cancer site or perforation proximal to the cancer site. Peritonitis due to perforation tends to be more severe in cases of perforation proximal to the cancer site; however, the difference in the outcome between the two types remains unclear. Surgical treatment of colon cancer with perforation has changed over time. Recently, many reports have shown the safety and effectiveness of single-stage operation consisting of resection and primary anastomosis with intraoperative colonic lavage. Under certain conditions, laparoscopic surgery can be feasible and help minimize the invasion. However, emergent surgery for colon cancer with perforation is associated with a high rate of mortality and morbidity. The long-term prognosis seems to have no association with the existence of perforation. Oncologically curative resection may be warranted for perforated colon cancer. In this report, we perform a literature review and investigate the characteristics and surgical strategy for colon cancer with perforation.

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.

Colorectal Perforation After Anorectal Manometry for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome

We experienced 3 cases of manometry-induced colon perforation. A 75-year-old man (case 1) underwent anorectal manometry (ARM) 3 years after radiotherapy for prostate cancer and a laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. A 70-year-old man (case 2) underwent ARM 3 months after conventional neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and a laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. A 78-year-old man (case 3) underwent ARM 2 months after a laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. In all cases, a colon perforation with fecal peritonitis occurred. All were treated successfully using prompt and active operations and were discharged without any complications. ARM with a balloon, as a measure of rectal compliance, should be performed 2 months or longer after surgery. If a perforation occurs, prompt and active surgical intervention is necessary due to the high possibility of extensive fecal peritonitis.

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.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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.