Department of Medicine and Gastroenterology, Evangelisches Diakoniekrankenhaus Freiburg, Academic Teaching Hospital, University of Freiburg, Wirthstraße 11, 79110, Freiburg, Germany.
Department of Gastroenterology, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Academic Teaching Hospital University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Surg Endosc. 2023 Jun;37(6):4370-4380. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-09920-z. Epub 2023 Feb 9.
Iatrogenic colorectal perforation is a rare event with a relevant mortality and the need for surgical therapy in around ¾ of cases.
In this retrospective multicentric cohort study iatrogenic colorectal perforations from 2004 to 2021 were analyzed. Primary outcome parameters were incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment. Comparative analysis of interventional and non-interventional perforations was performed and predictors for clinical success of endoscopic therapy were identified.
From 103,570 colonoscopies 213 (0.2%) iatrogenic perforations were identified. 68.4% were interventional (80 during polypectomy/EMR, 54 during ESD and 11 for other reasons) and 31.6% non-interventional perforations (39 by the tip, 19 by the shaft, 7 by inversion, two by biopsy and one by distension). Incidence of 1st line endoscopic therapy was 61.0% and clinical success 81.5%. Other non-surgical therapies were conducted in 8.9% with clinical success in 94.7% of cases. In interventional perforations both incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic therapy were significantly higher compared to non-interventional perforations [71.7% vs. 38.2% (p < 0.01) resp. 86.5% vs. 61.5% (p < 0.01)]. Mortality was 2.3% and significantly lower in the group of interventional perforations (0.7% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.037). Multivariable analysis revealed perforation size < 5 mm as only independent predictor for clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment [OR 14.85 (1.57-140.69), p = 0.019].
Endoscopic therapy is treatment of choice in the majority of iatrogenic colorectal perforations. In case of interventional perforations it is highly effective but only a minority of non-interventional perforations are good candidates for endoscopic treatment.
医源性结直肠穿孔是一种罕见的并发症,其相关死亡率约为 3/4,需要手术治疗。
本回顾性多中心队列研究分析了 2004 年至 2021 年期间发生的医源性结直肠穿孔病例。主要观察指标为一线内镜治疗的发生率和临床成功率。对介入性和非介入性穿孔进行了对比分析,并确定了内镜治疗临床成功率的预测因素。
在 103570 例结肠镜检查中,发现 213 例(0.2%)医源性穿孔。其中 68.4%为介入性穿孔(80 例在息肉切除/EMR 期间发生,54 例在 ESD 期间发生,11 例因其他原因发生),31.6%为非介入性穿孔(39 例因尖端穿孔,19 例因轴穿孔,7 例因反转穿孔,2 例因活检穿孔,1 例因扩张穿孔)。一线内镜治疗的发生率为 61.0%,临床成功率为 81.5%。其他非手术治疗在 8.9%的患者中进行,临床成功率为 94.7%。与非介入性穿孔相比,介入性穿孔的一线内镜治疗的发生率和临床成功率均显著更高[71.7%比 38.2%(p<0.01)和 86.5%比 61.5%(p<0.01)]。死亡率为 2.3%,介入性穿孔组明显更低(0.7%比 5.9%,p=0.037)。多变量分析显示穿孔直径<5mm是一线内镜治疗临床成功的唯一独立预测因素[比值比 14.85(1.57-140.69),p=0.019]。
内镜治疗是大多数医源性结直肠穿孔的首选治疗方法。在介入性穿孔的情况下,内镜治疗效果显著,但只有少数非介入性穿孔是内镜治疗的良好候选者。