Literature DB >> 19153318

Outcomes and predictors of mortality and stoma formation in surgical management of colonoscopic perforations: a multicenter review.

Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh1, Chi Ming Poon, Janet Fung Yee Lee, Hing Tat Leong, Simon Siu Man Ng, Joseph Jao Yiu Sung, James Yun Wong Lau.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To perform a retrospective review of all patients with colonoscopic perforations managed in hospitals within the Eastern New Territories region of Hong Kong and to determine the predictors of mortality and stoma formation in patients with colonoscopic perforations.
DESIGN: Retrospective computer-based review.
SETTING: Multicenter (1 university teaching hospital and 2 district hospitals).
METHODS: We reviewed the outcomes of patients with colonoscopic perforations surgically managed between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2005. Predictors of mortality and stoma formation were identified with multivariable analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality and stoma rates and their predictors.
RESULTS: A total of 37,971 colonoscopies were performed during the study period, and 43 colonoscopic perforations were identified. The overall perforation rate was 0.113% and represented a decreasing trend. There was no significant difference in the perforation rate between gastroenterologists (0.148%) and surgeons (0.091%) (P = .15). Perforations that occurred during diagnostic colonoscopies were significantly larger than those that occurred during therapeutic colonoscopies (P = .04), and the patients presented earlier (P = .02). Surgical intervention was performed in 39 patients. The overall morbidity and mortality rate was 48.7% and 25.6%, respectively. The stoma rate was 38.5%. The predictors of stoma formation include moderate to severe peritoneal contamination and the presence of malignant colonic neoplasms (P = .01 and P = .008, respectively). The predictors of mortality include American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or higher and antiplatelet therapy (P = .009 and P = .001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopic perforations were in a decreasing trend. Patients with predictors of mortality should not be treated conservatively. Other options of large bowel investigations should be considered in high-risk patients when the potential diagnostic yield is low.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19153318     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2008.503

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  30 in total

1.  Subcutaneous Facial and Neck Emphysema as First Sign of Intestinal Perforation in a Female Patient After a Routine Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Dimitrios Anyfantakis; Miltiades Kastanakis; Paraskevi Karona; Alexandros Papadomichelakis; Emmanouil Bobolakis
Journal:  Eurasian J Med       Date:  2016-08-18

2.  Perforation following colorectal endoscopy: what happens beyond the endoscopy suite?

Authors:  Michael S Tam; Maher A Abbas
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2013

Review 3.  Colonoscopic perforation: incidence, risk factors, management and outcome.

Authors:  Varut Lohsiriwat
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Lower rate of colonoscopic perforation: 110,785 patients of colonoscopy performed by colorectal surgeons in a large teaching hospital in China.

Authors:  Xiaohui Shi; Yongqi Shan; Enda Yu; Chuangang Fu; Ronggui Meng; Wei Zhang; Hantao Wang; Lianjie Liu; Liqiang Hao; Hao Wang; Miao Lin; Honglian Xu; Xiaodong Xu; Haifeng Gong; Zheng Lou; Haiyan He; Junjie Xing; Xianhua Gao; Beili Cai
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Management of colonoscopic perforation: a systematic review and treatment algorithm.

Authors:  Khalid N Alsowaina; Mooyad A Ahmed; Nawar A Alkhamesi; Ahmad I Elnahas; Jeffrey D Hawel; Nitin V Khanna; Christopher M Schlachta
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Incidence, risk, management, and outcomes of iatrogenic full-thickness large bowel injury associated with 56,882 colonoscopies in 14 Lithuanian hospitals.

Authors:  Narimantas Evaldas Samalavicius; Darius Kazanavicius; Raimundas Lunevicius; Tomas Poskus; Jonas Valantinas; Juozas Stanaitis; Aurelijus Grigaliunas; Audrius Gradauskas; Donatas Venskutonis; Remigijus Samuolis; Pranas Sniuolis; Mindaugas Gajauskas; Nerijus Kaselis; Raimundas Leipus; Gintautas Radziunas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Decision-making in the management of colonoscopic perforation: a multicentre retrospective study.

Authors:  Sung Bak An; Dong Woo Shin; Jeong Yeon Kim; Sung Gil Park; Bong Hwa Lee; Jong Wan Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Colonoscopic perforations: Single center experience and review of the literature.

Authors:  Şükrü Çolak; Bünyamin Gürbulak; Hasan Bektaş; Ekrem Çakar; Yiğit Düzköylü; Savaş Bayrak; Ayhan Güneyi
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2017-04-25

Review 9.  Colonoscopic Perforations.

Authors:  Vinay Rai; Nitin Mishra
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2017-12-19

10.  What are the risk factors of colonoscopic perforation?

Authors:  Varut Lohsiriwat; Sasithorn Sujarittanakarn; Thawatchai Akaraviputh; Narong Lertakyamanee; Darin Lohsiriwat; Udom Kachinthorn
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.