4.5 Article

Colonoscopy-associated perforation: a 7-year survey of in-hospital frequency, treatment and outcome in a German university hospital

Journal

COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages 1121-1125

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02899.x

Keywords

Colonoscopy-associated perforations; frequency; treatment and outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim Perforation occurs rarely after colonoscopy, but is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In this study, we assessed the perforation rate in our hospital, its clinical diagnosis and the long-term outcome. Method During the study period, 7535 examinations were performed, of which 4830 were diagnostic and 2705 therapeutic. The latter included polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), dilatation and argon plasma coagulation (APC). Results Overall, 25 (0.33%) perforations occurred with two (0.026%) procedure-related deaths. Seven (0.14%) perforations occurred during a diagnostic procedure and 18 (0.67%) occurred during a therapeutic procedure. Dilation, submusous resection (SMR) and APC accounted for more perforations than polypectomy or diagnostic colonoscopy. Pre-existing gastrointestinal disease was present in 24 (96%) perforations. Three (12%) patients were treated conservatively and 22 (88%) underwent surgery. The site of perforation was closed by suture in four (18%) patients and resected with colonic anastomosis in five (23%) patients. Two patients underwent endoscopic clipping. A stoma was created after resection in 13 (59%) patients. Conclusion Death from perforation after colonoscopy is rare, occurring in 1/3500 examinations. The risk is increased in therapeutic colonoscopy and in the presence of previous gastrointestinal disease. Dilatation, SMR and APC appeared to confer a higher risk of perforation than polypectomy or diagnostic colonoscopy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available