| Literature DB >> 28508033 |
Sherine Khater1, Gabriel Rahmi1, Guillaume Perrod1, Elia Samaha1, Hedi Benosman1, Leila Abbes1, Georgia Malamut1, Christophe Cellier1.
Abstract
Background and study aims Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been recently used in management of gastrointestinal perforations, but data on it are still limited. The aim of this study was to compare management of iatrogenic perforations before and after the OTSC was available in our endoscopy unit. Patients and methods We conducted a monocentric retrospective study from June 2007 to June 2015. All iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforations detected during endoscopy were included. Two time periods were compared in terms of surgery and mortality rates: before use of OTSC (June 2007 to June 2011) and after OTSC became available (June 2011 to June 2015). Results During the first period, 24 perforations were recorded. Fifteen (62.5 %) were managed with surgery. The mortality rate was 8 %. During the second period, 16 perforations occurred. In 11 patients (68.7 %), an OTSC was used to close the perforation, with complete sealing of the perforation in 100 % of cases. However, 2 patients with sigmoid perforation had to undergo surgery due to right ureteral obstruction by the clip in 1 case and to presence of a localized peritonitis in the other. The surgery rate during this period was 12.5 % (2 /16), with a statistically significant difference compared to the first period (P = 0.002). There was no mortality in the second period versus 8 % in the first one (P = 0.23). Conclusions OTSC is effective for endoluminal closure of iatrogenic perforations and results in a significant decrease in surgery rate.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28508033 PMCID: PMC5429170 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-104862
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1 Endoscopic images from a patient who was treated with an OTSC. a An EMR in the sigmoid is complicated by b a perforation. c A twin grasper is used to approximate the edges of the perforation and d an OTSC is used to close the perforation.
Fig. 2Abdominal CT scan performed 24 hours after a duodenal bulb perforation treated by OTSC placement. The clip is in the same location and the opacification with oral contrast shows no leakage.
Characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with OTSC.
| Patient | Sex | Age | Location of perforation | Cause | Perforation size | Use of twin grasper | Technical success | Clinical success |
| 1 | M | 81 | Rectosigmoid junction | Diagnostic colonoscopy | 10 mm | No | Yes | No (surgical intervention) |
| 2 | F | 73 | Colorectal anastomoses | Therapeutic colonoscopy (EMR) | 10 mm | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | F | 73 | Rectum | Therapeutic colonoscopy (ESD) | 20 mm | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4 | F | 63 | Sigmoid | Therapeutic colonoscopy (EMR) | 15 mm | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 5 | F | 71 | Sigmoid | Therapeutic colonoscopy (EMR) | 10 mm | No | Yes | Yes |
| 6 | F | 43 | Rectosigmoid junction | Diagnostic colonoscopy | 10 mm | Yes | Yes | No (ureteral obstruction) |
| 7 | F | 92 | Sigmoid | Diagnostic colonoscopy | 10 mm | No | Yes | Yes |
| 8 | F | 78 | Cardia | Therapeutic gastroscopy (EMR) | 10 mm | No | Yes | Yes |
| 9 | F | 56 | Duodenal bulb | Diagnostic EUS | 10 mm | No | Yes | Yes |
| 10 | F | 78 | Duodenal bulb | Diagnostic EUS | 10 mm | No | Yes | Yes |
| 11 | F | 93 | Duodenum | Diagnostic EUS | 10 mm | No | Yes | Yes |
F = female, M = male
EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; EUS, endoscopic ultrasonography
Results from the 2 study periods.
|
|
| |
| Number of perforations | 24 | 16 |
| Location | ||
Colon | 18 (75 %) | 9 (56.3 %) |
Duodenum | 5 (20.8 %) | 4 (25 %) |
Stomach | 1 (4.2 %) | 2 (12.5 %) |
Esophagus | 0 | 1 (6.2 %) |
| Cause | ||
Diagnostic endoscopy | 12 (50 %) | 7 (43.8 %) |
Therapeutic endoscopy | 12 (50 %) | 9 (56.2 %) |
| – EMR | 5 (20.9 %) | 7 |
| – ESD | 4 | 1 |
| – Other (dilation…) | 3 | 1 |
| Treatment | ||
Surgery | 15 | 9 |
TTS clips | 2 | 4 |
OTSC | 0 | 11, with subsequent surgery in 2 |
Conservative management | 7 | 9 |
Endoscopic stenting | 0 | 4 |
| Surgery | 15 (62.5 %) | 2 (12.5 %) |
| Mortality | 2 (8.3 %) | 0 (0 %) |
EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection
P < 0.05