ArticleCureus2022
Analysis of the Characteristics of Colonoscopy Perforation and Risk Factors for Failure of Endoscopic Treatment.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conservative management of delayed perforation after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a single-center experience.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany studies have been done regarding perforation after colonoscopy, but few studies analyzed the risk factors of endoscopic treatment failure after colonoscopy perforation. This study aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics and treatment plan of those patients with perforation after colonoscopy diagnosis and the treatment and risk factors of failure to endoscopic treatment.
methodThis was a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent colonoscopy examination and treatment at the Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, from 04/2009 to 03/2020. The patients were grouped as perforation, treatment success, or failure (required laparoscopy or laparotomy).
resultsFrom April 2009 to March 2020, 43,470 patients were examined and treated with colonoscopy. There were 35 cases of intestinal perforation, for an incidence of 0.081%. Four patients had immediate surgical intervention (two patients with laparoscopic surgery and two with laparotomy surgery). Thirty-one (88.57%) patients underwent endoscopic treatment. Endoscopic treatment was successful in 20 patients and failed in 11. Compared with the failure group, the perforation size in the success group was smaller (7.60±4.85 vs. 14.4±7.03 mm, P=0.004), hospital stay was shorter (26.6±13.1 vs. 14.2±3.0, P=0.011), and hospitalization costs were lower (30,208±9506 vs. 23,053±6227 RMB, P=0.002). Multivariable logistic stepwise analysis showed that the absence of abdominal pain after therapeutic colonoscopy was independently associated with the success of endoscopic treatment.
conclusionsEndoscopic treatment is logically the preferred modality for perforation management, leading to good recovery, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs of treatment. Postoperative abdominal pain is significantly related to the failure of endoscopic treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.