Optimal Methods for the Management of Iatrogenic Colonoscopic Perforation

Dae Kyu Shin; Sun Young Shin; Chi Young Park; Sun Mi Jin; Yang Hyun Cho; Won Hee Kim; Chang-Il Kwon; Kwang Hyun Ko; Ki Baik Hahm; Pil Won Park; Jong Woo Kim; Sung Pyo Hong

doi:10.5946/ce.2015.046

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 49(3); 2016 > Article

Original Article Optimal Methods for the Management of Iatrogenic Colonoscopic Perforation: Dae Kyu Shin¹, Sun Young Shin¹, Chi Young Park¹, Sun Mi Jin¹, Yang Hyun Cho¹, Won Hee Kim¹, Chang-Il Kwon¹, Kwang Hyun Ko¹, Ki Baik Hahm¹, Pil Won Park¹, Jong Woo Kim², Sung Pyo Hong¹; Clinical Endoscopy 2016;49(3):282-288.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2015.046
Published online: February 18, 2016

¹Department of Internal Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea

²Department of Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea

Correspondence: Sung Pyo Hong, Digestive Disease Center, Department of Internal Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, 59 Yatap-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13496, Korea Tel: +82-31-780-5214, Fax: +82-31-780-5219, E-mail: sphong@cha.ac.kr

• Received: March 10, 2015 • Revised: May 16, 2015 • Accepted: May 17, 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

10,232 Views
168 Download
20 Web of Science
17 Crossref
22 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

See letter "How Should We Manage Iatrogenic Perforation Caused by Colonoscopy?" in Volume 49 on page 214.

Abstract

Background/Aims:
Colonoscopic perforations have been managed with exploratory laparotomy, and have resulted in some morbidity and mortality. Recently, laparoscopic surgery is commonly performed for this purpose. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of several management strategies for iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had been treated for colonoscopic perforation between January 2004 and April 2013 at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea.
Results:
A total of 41 patients with colonoscopic perforation were enrolled. Twenty patients underwent conservative management with a success rate of 90%. Surgical management was performed in 23 patients including two patients who were converted to surgical management after the failure of the initial conservative management. Among 14 patients who underwent surgery at 8 hours after the perforation, there was no considerable difference in adverse outcomes between the laparotomy group and the laparoscopic surgery group. The medical costs and claim rate were 1.45 and 1.87 times greater in the exploratory laparotomy group, respectively.
Conclusions:
Conservative management of colonoscopic perforation could be an option for patients without overt symptoms of peritonitis or with a small defect size. If surgical management is required, laparoscopic surgery may be considered as the initial procedure even with a delayed diagnosis.
Keywords: Colonoscopy; Colonoscopic perforation; Laparoscopic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a safe and effective method for the screening of colorectal diseases. Although the incidence is low, colonoscopic perforation is a well-recognized and severe complication. With the growing numbers of colonoscopic procedures performed, the incidence of colonoscopic perforation has been increased [1,2]. Published series reported high mortality among patients with colonoscopic perforation [3-6]. Early exploratory laparotomy with primary closure or bowel resection has been the standard treatment of colonoscopic perforation; however, relatively high morbidity and mortality rates were reported [7-10].

Recently, some reports have advocated either conservative management [11,12] or laparoscopic surgery [13-16]. However, the optimal management of colonoscopic perforation remains controversial. We therefore investigated the outcomes and effectiveness of each management strategy to suggest the optimal management for colonoscopic perforation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who had been treated for colonoscopic perforation between January 2004 and April 2013 at CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University. The patients’ demographic data, endoscopic procedure information, perforation location, perforation size, management, and outcomes of each management method were reviewed.

Methods

The diagnosis of colon perforation was assumed on the basis of clinical data and confirmed by using plain (chest or abdominal) radiography or computed tomography. The size of perforation was assumed from endoscopic records in the conservative management group and from surgical records in the surgical management group. The management was decided on the basis of the patients’ clinical condition, by five endoscopists with 5, 12, 15, 18, and 22 years’ experience in therapeutic endoscopy or six faculty surgeons on duty with 5, 10, 11, 15, 19, and 22 years’ experience in surgery. For the patients without overt symptoms of peritonitis or a large defect, conservative management was applied. Otherwise, surgical management was performed.

Conservative management included absolute bowel rest, parenteral nutrition and broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics. Endoscopic repair was attempted during the procedure in selected patients who had a small-sized perforation with immediate diagnosis. The types of surgical approach were decided by the surgeon according to his/her experience in laparoscopy, the elapsed time from perforation to operation, and the patient’s clinical condition.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were compared by using Fisher exact test or the chi-square test. Numerical variables were compared by using Student t-test or the Mann-Whitney test. Probability values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed by using SPSS version 19.0.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

During the study period, 48,088 colonoscopies were performed and a total of 28 colonoscopic perforations (0.06%) occurred. Colon perforation from diagnostic colonoscopy occurred in five (0.01%) of 40,232 cases and from therapeutic colonoscopy in 23 (0.29%) of 7,856 cases.

A total of 41 patients with colonoscopic perforation, including 13 patients referred from other clinics, were enrolled. There were 14 colonoscopic perforations from diagnostic colonoscopy and 27 from therapeutic colonoscopy. Sixteen cases occurred during polypectomy, four cases during mucosal resection and seven cases during submucosal dissection.

The mean size of the perforation was significantly larger in the diagnostic colonoscopy group than in the therapeutic colonoscopy group. Therefore, more surgical procedures were applied in the diagnostic colonoscopy group. The mean size of the perforation was also larger in the operation group than in the conservative management group; however, the difference was not significant because of some missing data in cases of unmeasurable micro-perforation. The perforation was diagnosed immediately during colonoscopy in only 23 cases (56%).

The most common site of perforation was the sigmoid colon (39%), followed by the rectum (17%). The sites of perforation were mostly in the left colon in the diagnostic colonoscopy group and variable in the therapeutic colonoscopy group. There was no significant difference in terms of management, outcomes and peritoneal contamination between the fasting group and the non-fasting group (Table 1).

Conservative management and endoscopic repair

Conservative management was applied in 20 patients without overt symptoms and signs of peritonitis, and was successful in 18 patients (90%) (Table 2). Surgical resection was needed in two patients because of evidence of aggravated peritonitis after the endoscopic repair; the perforation size in these two patients was 40 and 15 mm, respectively.

Endoscopic repair with clipping was attempted in nine patients and was successful in seven of them (78%). The patients who underwent successful endoscopic repair had perforation of ≤10 mm in size. Over-the-scope clipping was not applied in these patients. The remaining 11 patients recovered with only medications. One patient who had abscess formation at the transverse mesocolon after polypectomy was managed with aspiration and antibiotics treatment.

Surgical management

Surgical management was applied in 21 patients (51%) initially and in two patients who were converted to surgical management after the failure of the initial conservative management (Table 2). Among these 23 patients, 15 patients underwent exploratory laparotomy including one patient who was shifted from laparoscopic surgery because of a long circumferential perforation. Eight patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. The mean size of the perforation was significantly smaller in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the exploratory laparotomy group. Primary closure was done in 11 patients (73.3%), and segmental colectomy was performed in four patients (26.7%) in the laparotomy group. In the laparoscopy group, primary closure was performed in five patients (62.5%) and segmental colectomy in three patients (37.5%). Laparotomy was applied more commonly in female patients than in male patients. The laparoscopic surgery group was significantly superior to the laparotomy group in terms of hospital stay with non-inferior adverse outcomes. The medical costs and claim rate were 1.45 and 1.87 times greater in the exploratory laparotomy group than in the laparoscopic surgery group, respectively. One laparotomy patient needed a repeat laparotomy because of leakage from the anastomosis site. Laparoscopic approaches were performed only by a limited number of surgeons with ample experience in laparoscopy (Table 3).

Operative closure was performed within 8 hours from perforation in nine patients (35%) among the 23 surgically managed patients. Among them, six patients underwent laparotomy and three underwent laparoscopic surgery. Regardless of whether the perforation was diagnosed immediately or not, the elapsed time from colonoscopy to surgery was not significantly different between laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery (Fig. 1).

Among 14 patients who underwent surgery after 8 hours from perforation, there was no significant difference in adverse outcomes between the laparotomy group and the laparoscopic surgery group (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

Unlike other colon perforation cases, perforation that occurred during colonoscopy could be managed conservatively because the bowel had been cleaned [17,18]. In our study, conservative management including endoscopic repair was available in 44% of patients with a 90% success rate. In case of colon perforation confirmed only with radiology, or a small perforation without overt peritonitis, conservative management could be a good choice with a high success rate [19]. However, as the failure of a conservative management can be catastrophic, the decision should be made carefully.

Endoscopic repair with clip closure can be applied in case of an immediate diagnosis of perforation during colonoscopy. It is effective in creating a leak-proof seal of the perforation and enables avoiding surgery. It is useful for the closure of small (10 mm) non-gaping perforations [20]. In cases of a large gaping perforation, over-the-scope clipping is available nowadays. In our study, endoscopic repair of colonoscopic perforation by means of clipping showed a success rate of 78 %. However, in cases with a perforation size of ≤10 mm, the success rate of endoscopic repair was as high as 100%. This result is consistent with previous reports [1,20]. To reduce pain or discomfort after endoscopic repair, CO₂ insufflation is recommended to accelerate intraperitoneal gas absorption [21].

Recently, laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly used with good outcomes. Some reports have strongly suggested that laparoscopic surgery should be the initial treatment for early-diagnosed colonoscopic perforations [14]. However, when the time interval from perforation to surgery is delayed, exploratory laparotomy is generally preferred because of the possibility of peritoneal contamination and severe peritonitis. The risk factors of severe contamination or severe peritonitis are delayed surgery, large defects, and diet before the operation. According to our results, laparotomy was performed in cases with a larger defect, and laparoscopy in cases with a little longer elapsed time from perforation to surgery. As a result, the degree of peritoneal contamination was not different. One report showed that operative closure within 8 hours after the perforation achieved primary repair without diversion [22]. Therefore, the surgical managements were evaluated by dividing the surgeries to those performed before 8 hours and those performed thereafter. In our study, there was no significant difference in outcomes between the laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery groups even after 8 hours from perforation. These results demonstrated that a delayed time to the operation, which is closely related to having a clean wound on the perforation site, may not be the absolute indication for exploratory laparotomy. Hence, it is reasonable for surgeons to attempt the laparoscopic approach first for colonoscopic perforation in consideration of not only the recovery time and operation scar but also the cost and malpractice claim.

In addition, the immediate diagnosis of colonoscopic perforation is not easy. Colon perforations were diagnosed immediately in only 56% of cases. Surgical management was performed more frequently in cases of perforation from diagnostic colonoscopy, as in another report [23]. The reasons for this difference were a delayed awareness of the perforation and a larger defect size. The mechanism of perforation during polypectomy or submucosal dissection was based on a heat coagulation damage of the muscle layer; however, perforation from diagnostic colonoscopy occurred because of pushing or stretching in the angulated portion. Therefore, the sites of perforation from therapeutic colonoscopy were distributed in the whole colon but those from diagnostic colonoscopy were mostly located in the left colon. There was no significant difference in terms of peritoneal contamination at operation between the fasting group and the non-fasting group in our data.

Briefly, conservative management of colonoscopic perforation is effective for patients without overt symptoms of peritonitis, or a large defect. If surgical management is required, laparoscopic surgery should be considered as the initial surgical management even with a delayed diagnosis. The flow chart for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforation is shown in Fig. 2.

The key message of our study is that colonoscopic perforation with a clean wound could be the indication of laparoscopic surgery even with a delayed diagnosis. Laparoscopic surgery can reduce the patients’ physiological and emotional stress from laparotomy and help them return to normal life earlier. It may also reduce malpractice claims and medical costs as our results showed.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Fig. 1.

Elapsed time from perforation to surgery according to the awareness of the perforation. (A) Elapsed time in patients with an immediate diagnosis of perforation. (B) Elapsed time in patients with a delayed diagnosis of perforation. There was no statistical difference in the elapsed time between laparotomy and laparoscopy.

Fig. 2.

Flow chart for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforation. Colonoscopic perforations could be found during or after procedures. This figure shows processes and clinical outcomes of each management for colonoscopic perforations.

Table 1.

Outcomes according to the State of Fasting before Management

Variable	Fasting group (n=29)	Non-fasting group (n=12)	p-value
Peritoneal contamination (n=23)^a)	16	7	0.330
None	3 (18.8)	3 (42.9)
Fluid	12 (75.0)	3 (42.9)
Stercoraceous	1 (6.2)	1 (14.2)
Management			0.344
Conservative	13 (44.8)	5 (41.7)
Exploratory laparotomy	10 (34.5)	4 (33.3)
Laparoscopic surgery	6 (20.7)	3 (25.0)
Hospital stay, day	9.2±4.5	10.7±5.8	0.642
Adverse event^b) with 1st management, yes:no	0:27 (0)	2:10 (16.7)	0.024

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±SD.

^a)Confirmed by operation records;

^b)Leakage and abscess formation.

Table 2.

Characteristics of Patients and Outcomes according to the Management

Characteristic	Operation (n=23)	Conservative care (n=18)	p-value
Age, yr	60.5±11.9	53.9±13.2	0.104
Sex, male:female	12:11	13:5	0.192
Aim of colonoscopy			0.037
Diagnostic	11	3
Therapeutic	12	15
Site of perforation			0.817
Ascending colon	6	4
Transverse colon	1	2
Descending colon	4	1
Sigmoid colon	9	7
Rectum	3	4
Size of defect, mm	17.2±2.9	3.6±3.5	0.074
Awareness of perforation, yes:no	13:10 (56.7)	10:8 (55.6)	0.951
Fasting:non-fasting	16:7	13:5	0.853
Leukocytosis (>10,000 mm³)	10	2	0.024
Hospital stay, day	12.6±4.4	5.8±2.1	<0.001
Adverse outcomes with 1st treatment			0.269
Operation after clipping	2	-
Re-operation	1	0
Abscess formation	0	1

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Table 3.

Characteristics of Patients and Operative_Outcomes according to the Surgical Methods

Characteristic	Laparotomy (n=15)	Laparoscopy (n=8)	p-value
Age, yr	58.7±11.4	64.3±11.9	0.294
Sex, male:female	5:10	7:1	0.013
Aim of colonoscopy, diagnostic:therapeutic	7:8	4:4	0.645
Size of defect, mm	22.0±22.2	8.6±5.2	0.036
History of abdominopelvic surgery, yes/no	3:12	0:8	0.175
Time from perforation to operation, hr	18.8±18.2	28.1±31.0	0.371
Leukocytosis (>10,000 mm³), %	27.3	28.6	0.645
Early surgery, yes:no^a)	6:9	3:5	0.907
Abdominal contamination			0.189
None	10 (66.7)	5 (62.5)
Fluid	4 (26.7)	2 (25.0)
Stercoraceous	1 (6.7)	1 (12.5)
Operation			0.317
Primary closure	11 (73.3)	5 (62.5)
Wedge colectomy	3 (20.0)	3 (37.5)
Colostomy	1 (6.7)	0
Re-operation	1	0	0.455
Surgeon, active laparoscopist, yes:no	7:8	8:0	0.052
Hospital stay, day	14.7±3.5	8.6±2.9	<0.001
Medical cost (ratio)	1.45	1	0.119
Medical claim, yes:no^b)	7:8	1:7	0.176

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

^a)Surgery which was started within 8 hours from perforation;

^b)Medical claim, asking some compensation money.

Table 4.

Outcomes of Surgical Managements Performed after 8 Hours from Perforation

Variable	Laparotomy (n=9)	Laparoscopy (n=5)	p-value
Hospital stay, day	14.7±4.2	8.8±3.1	0.018
Hospital cost (ratio)	1.36	1	0.332
Medical claim, yes:no^a)	7:2	2:3	0.158
Re-operation	1	0	0.439

Values are presented as mean±SD.

^a)Medical claim, asking some compensation money.

REFERENCES

1. Kim JS, Kim BW, Kim JI, et al. Endoscopic clip closure versus surgery for the treatment of iatrogenic colon perforations developed during diagnostic colonoscopy: a review of 115,285 patients. Surg Endosc 2013;27:501–504.Article PubMed
2. Namgung H, Cho MK, Lee KH, et al. Management of colonic perforation during colonoscopic procedure. Korean J Gastrointest Endosc 2005;30:188–193.
3. Hall C, Dorricott NJ, Donovan IA, Neoptolemos JP. Colon perforation during colonoscopy: surgical versus conservative management. Br J Surg 1991;78:542–544.Article PubMed
4. Lo AY, Beaton HL. Selective management of colonoscopic perforations. J Am Coll Surg 1994;179:333–337.PubMed
5. Jentschura D, Raute M, Winter J, Henkel T, Kraus M, Manegold BC. Complications in endoscopy of the lower gastrointestinal tract: therapy and prognosis. Surg Endosc 1994;8:672–676.Article PubMed
6. Kavic SM, Basson MD. Complications of endoscopy. Am J Surg 2001;181:319–332.Article PubMed
7. Iqbal CW, Cullinane DC, Schiller HJ, Sawyer MD, Zietlow SP, Farley DR. Surgical management and outcomes of 165 colonoscopic perforations from a single institution. Arch Surg 2008;143:701–706.Article PubMed
8. Arora G, Mannalithara A, Singh G, Gerson LB, Triadafilopoulos G. Risk of perforation from a colonoscopy in adults: a large population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69(3 Pt 2):654–664.Article PubMed
9. La Torre M, Velluti F, Giuliani G, Di Giulio E, Ziparo V, La Torre F. Promptness of diagnosis is the main prognostic factor after colonoscopic perforation. Colorectal Dis 2012;14:e23–e26.Article PubMed
10. Matharoo GS, Goldfarb MA. Treatment and outcomes of iatrogenic colon perforations at a community teaching hospital. Am Surg 2012;78:975–978.Article PubMed
11. Na EJ, Kim KJ, Min YD. Safety of conservative treatment of colonoscopic perforation. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 2005;21:384–389.
12. Magdeburg R, Collet P, Post S, Kaehler G. Endoclipping of iatrogenic colonic perforation to avoid surgery. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1500–1504.Article PubMed
13. Coimbra C, Bouffioux L, Kohnen L, et al. Laparoscopic repair of colonoscopic perforation: a new standard? Surg Endosc 2011;25:1514–1517.Article PubMed
14. Bleier JI, Moon V, Feingold D, et al. Initial repair of iatrogenic colon perforation using laparoscopic methods. Surg Endosc 2008;22:646–649.Article PubMed
15. Miranda L, Settembre A, Piccolboni D, Capasso P, Corcione F. Iatrogenic colonic perforation: repair using laparoscopic technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2011;21:170–174.Article PubMed
16. Makarawo TP, Damadi A, Mittal VK, Itawi E, Rana G. Colonoscopic perforation management by laparoendoscopy: an algorithm. JSLS 2014;18:20–27.Article PubMed PMC
17. Christie JP, Marrazzo J 3rd. “Mini-perforation” of the colon: not all postpolypectomy perforations require laparotomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:132–135.Article PubMed
18. Cho YK, Nam SW, Kim HC, et al. Conservative treatment of colonoscopic perforations. Korean J Gastrointest Endosc 2006;33:20–25.
19. Castellví J, Pi F, Sueiras A, et al. Colonoscopic perforation: useful parameters for early diagnosis and conservative treatment. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011;26:1183–1190.Article PubMed
20. Raju GS, Saito Y, Matsuda T, Kaltenbach T, Soetikno R. Endoscopic management of colonoscopic perforations (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1380–1388.Article PubMed
21. Wu J, Hu B. The role of carbon dioxide insufflation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2012;44:128–136.Article PubMed PDF
22. Vincent M, Smith LE. Management of perforation due to colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:61–63.Article PubMed
23. Magdeburg R, Sold M, Post S, Kaehler G. Differences in the endoscopic closure of colonic perforation due to diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2013;48:862–867.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Surgical repair of endoscopy-induced colonic perforations: a case-matched study of short-term morbidity and mortality
Fady DANIEL, Suha JABAK, Mohammad HOSNI, Hani TAMIM, Aurelie MAILHAC, Ayman ALRAZIM, Noura AL-ALI, Robert CHURCH, Mohammad KHALIFE, Shafik SIDANI, Faek JAMALI
Minerva Surgery.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colonoscopic perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Wu Zhong, Chuanyuan Liu, Chuanfa Fang, Lei Zhang, Xianping He, Weiquan Zhu, Xueyun Guan
Medicine.2023; 102(24): e34057. CrossRef
Elastography for Pediatric Chronic Liver Disease
Giovanna Ferraioli, Richard G. Barr, Jonathan R. Dillman
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine.2021; 40(5): 909. CrossRef
Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for repairing colonoscopic perforation: a multicenter study
Jae Seok Lee, Jeong Yeon Kim, Byung Mo Kang, Sang Nam Yoon, Jun Ho Park, Bo Young Oh, Jong Wan Kim
Surgery Today.2021; 51(2): 285. CrossRef
The analysis of outcomes of surgical management for colonoscopic perforations: A 16-years experiences at a single institution
Dae Ro Lim, Jung Kul Kuk, Taehyung Kim, Eung Jin Shin
Asian Journal of Surgery.2020; 43(5): 577. CrossRef
Multicenter retrospective evaluation of ileocecocolic perforations associated with diagnostic lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in dogs and cats
Vanessa L. Woolhead, Jacqueline C. Whittemore, Sarah A. Stewart
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.2020; 34(2): 684. CrossRef
Endoscopic Management of the Ascending Colon Perforation Secondary to a Rare-Earth Magnets Ingestion in a Pediatric Patient
Sandra Mabel Camacho-Gomez, James Meredith Noel, Robert Adam Noel
ACG Case Reports Journal.2020; 7(8): e00436. CrossRef
Pseudo‐obstruction But a Real Perforation

AORN Journal.2019; 109(1): 142. CrossRef
Treatment of colonoscopic perforation: outcomes from a major single tertiary institution
Carolyn R. Chew, Justin M. C. Yeung, Ian G. Faragher
ANZ Journal of Surgery.2019; 89(5): 546. CrossRef
Management of colonoscopic perforations: A systematic review
Alexander T. Hawkins, Kenneth W. Sharp, Molly M. Ford, Roberta L. Muldoon, M. Benjamin Hopkins, Timothy M. Geiger
The American Journal of Surgery.2018; 215(4): 712. CrossRef
2017 WSES guidelines for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation
Nicola de’Angelis, Salomone Di Saverio, Osvaldo Chiara, Massimo Sartelli, Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Franca Patrizi, Dieter G. Weber, Luca Ansaloni, Walter Biffl, Offir Ben-Ishay, Miklosh Bala, Francesco Brunetti, Federica Gaiani, Solafah Abdalla, Aurelien Ami
World Journal of Emergency Surgery.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
Management Outcomes of Colonoscopic Perforations Are Affected by the General Condition of the Patients
Jae Ho Park, Kyung Jong Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2018; 34(1): 16. CrossRef
Abdominal Sepsis: An Update
Mircea Gabriel Mureșan, Ioan Alexandru Balmoș, Iudita Badea, Ario Santini
The Journal of Critical Care Medicine.2018; 4(4): 120. CrossRef
Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for the treatment of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Nicola de’Angelis, Francesco Brunetti, Yann Le Baleur, Carmen Payá-Llorente, Riccardo Memeo, Federica Gaiani, Marco Manfredi, Paschalis Gavriilidis, Giorgio Nervi, Federico Coccolini, Aurelien Amiot, Iradj Sobhani, Fausto Catena, Gia
World Journal of Emergency Surgery.2017;[Epub] CrossRef
Urinary Bladder Injury During Colonoscopy Without Colon Perforation
Jung Wook Suh, Jun Won Min, Hwan Namgung, Dong-Guk Park
Annals of Coloproctology.2017; 33(3): 112. CrossRef
The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections
Massimo Sartelli, Alain Chichom-Mefire, Francesco M. Labricciosa, Timothy Hardcastle, Fikri M. Abu-Zidan, Abdulrashid K. Adesunkanmi, Luca Ansaloni, Miklosh Bala, Zsolt J. Balogh, Marcelo A. Beltrán, Offir Ben-Ishay, Walter L. Biffl, Arianna Birindelli, M
World Journal of Emergency Surgery.2017;[Epub] CrossRef
How Should We Manage Iatrogenic Perforation Caused by Colonoscopy?
Eun Sun Kim
Clinical Endoscopy.2016; 49(3): 214. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Optimal Methods for the Management of Iatrogenic Colonoscopic Perforation

Clin Endosc. 2016;49(3):282-288. Published online February 18, 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2015.046

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Optimal Methods for the Management of Iatrogenic Colonoscopic Perforation

Fig. 1. Elapsed time from perforation to surgery according to the awareness of the perforation. (A) Elapsed time in patients with an immediate diagnosis of perforation. (B) Elapsed time in patients with a delayed diagnosis of perforation. There was no statistical difference in the elapsed time between laparotomy and laparoscopy.

Fig. 2. Flow chart for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforation. Colonoscopic perforations could be found during or after procedures. This figure shows processes and clinical outcomes of each management for colonoscopic perforations.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Optimal Methods for the Management of Iatrogenic Colonoscopic Perforation

Variable	Fasting group (n=29)	Non-fasting group (n=12)	p-value
Peritoneal contamination (n=23)^a)	16	7	0.330
None	3 (18.8)	3 (42.9)
Fluid	12 (75.0)	3 (42.9)
Stercoraceous	1 (6.2)	1 (14.2)
Management			0.344
Conservative	13 (44.8)	5 (41.7)
Exploratory laparotomy	10 (34.5)	4 (33.3)
Laparoscopic surgery	6 (20.7)	3 (25.0)
Hospital stay, day	9.2±4.5	10.7±5.8	0.642
Adverse event^b) with 1st management, yes:no	0:27 (0)	2:10 (16.7)	0.024

Characteristic	Operation (n=23)	Conservative care (n=18)	p-value
Age, yr	60.5±11.9	53.9±13.2	0.104
Sex, male:female	12:11	13:5	0.192
Aim of colonoscopy			0.037
Diagnostic	11	3
Therapeutic	12	15
Site of perforation			0.817
Ascending colon	6	4
Transverse colon	1	2
Descending colon	4	1
Sigmoid colon	9	7
Rectum	3	4
Size of defect, mm	17.2±2.9	3.6±3.5	0.074
Awareness of perforation, yes:no	13:10 (56.7)	10:8 (55.6)	0.951
Fasting:non-fasting	16:7	13:5	0.853
Leukocytosis (>10,000 mm³)	10	2	0.024
Hospital stay, day	12.6±4.4	5.8±2.1	<0.001
Adverse outcomes with 1st treatment			0.269
Operation after clipping	2	-
Re-operation	1	0
Abscess formation	0	1

Characteristic	Laparotomy (n=15)	Laparoscopy (n=8)	p-value
Age, yr	58.7±11.4	64.3±11.9	0.294
Sex, male:female	5:10	7:1	0.013
Aim of colonoscopy, diagnostic:therapeutic	7:8	4:4	0.645
Size of defect, mm	22.0±22.2	8.6±5.2	0.036
History of abdominopelvic surgery, yes/no	3:12	0:8	0.175
Time from perforation to operation, hr	18.8±18.2	28.1±31.0	0.371
Leukocytosis (>10,000 mm³), %	27.3	28.6	0.645
Early surgery, yes:no^a)	6:9	3:5	0.907
Abdominal contamination			0.189
None	10 (66.7)	5 (62.5)
Fluid	4 (26.7)	2 (25.0)
Stercoraceous	1 (6.7)	1 (12.5)
Operation			0.317
Primary closure	11 (73.3)	5 (62.5)
Wedge colectomy	3 (20.0)	3 (37.5)
Colostomy	1 (6.7)	0
Re-operation	1	0	0.455
Surgeon, active laparoscopist, yes:no	7:8	8:0	0.052
Hospital stay, day	14.7±3.5	8.6±2.9	<0.001
Medical cost (ratio)	1.45	1	0.119
Medical claim, yes:no^b)	7:8	1:7	0.176

Variable	Laparotomy (n=9)	Laparoscopy (n=5)	p-value
Hospital stay, day	14.7±4.2	8.8±3.1	0.018
Hospital cost (ratio)	1.36	1	0.332
Medical claim, yes:no^a)	7:2	2:3	0.158
Re-operation	1	0	0.439

Table 1. Outcomes according to the State of Fasting before Management

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±SD.

Confirmed by operation records;

Leakage and abscess formation.

Table 2. Characteristics of Patients and Outcomes according to the Management

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Table 3. Characteristics of Patients and Operative_Outcomes according to the Surgical Methods

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Surgery which was started within 8 hours from perforation;

Medical claim, asking some compensation money.

Table 4. Outcomes of Surgical Managements Performed after 8 Hours from Perforation