Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31451923›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2019

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

Khalid N Alsowaina, Mooyad A Ahmed, Nawar A Alkhamesi, Ahmad I Elnahas, Jeffrey D Hawel, Nitin V Khanna, Christopher M Schlachta

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Factors Associated with the Clinical Outcomes of Iatrogenic Colonic Perforation].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Khalid N AlsowainaCanadian Surgical Technologies & Advanced Robotics (CSTAR), 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON, N6A 5A5, Canada. khalid.alsowaina@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3085-1087
Mooyad A AhmedCanadian Surgical Technologies & Advanced Robotics (CSTAR), 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON, N6A 5A5, Canada.
Nawar A AlkhamesiCanadian Surgical Technologies & Advanced Robotics (CSTAR), 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON, N6A 5A5, Canada.
Ahmad I ElnahasCanadian Surgical Technologies & Advanced Robotics (CSTAR), 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON, N6A 5A5, Canada.
Jeffrey D HawelCanadian Surgical Technologies & Advanced Robotics (CSTAR), 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON, N6A 5A5, Canada.
Nitin V KhannaDepartment of Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Christopher M SchlachtaCanadian Surgical Technologies & Advanced Robotics (CSTAR), 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON, N6A 5A5, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this review is to evaluate and summarize the current strategies used in the management of colonoscopic perforations as well as propose a modern treatment algorithm.

methodsArticles published between January 2004 and January 2019 were screened. A total of 167 reports were identified in combined literature search, of which 61 articles were selected after exclusion of duplicate and unrelated articles. Only studies that reported on the management of endoscopic perforation in an adult population were retrieved for review. Case reports and case series of 8 patients or less were not considered. Ultimately, 19 articles were considered eligible for review.

resultsA total of 744 cases of colonoscopic perforations were reported in 19 major articles. The cause of perforation was mentioned in 16 articles. Colonoscopic perforations were reported as a consequence of diagnostic colonoscopies in 222 cases and therapeutic colonoscopies in 248 cases. The site of perforation was mentioned in 486 cases. Sigmoid colon was the predominant site followed by the cecum. The management of colonoscopic perforations was reported in a total of 741 patients. Surgical intervention was employed in 75% of the patients, of these 15% were laparoscopic and 85% required laparotomy. The predominant surgical intervention was primary repair.

conclusionManagement strategies of colon perforations depend upon the etiology, size, severity, location, available expertise, and general health status. Usually, peritonitis, sepsis, or hemodynamic compromise requires immediate surgical management. Endoscopic techniques are under continuous evolution. Newer developments have offered high success rate with least amount of post-procedure complications. However, there is a need for further studies to compare the newer endoscopic techniques in terms of success rate, cost, complications, and the affected part of colon.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsColonoscopyHumansIntestinal PerforationLaparoscopyLaparotomyColonoscopic perforationColonoscopyManagementTreatment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.