ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2025
Splenic injuries following upper endoscopic procedures: a systematic review of cases.
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Splenic injury is a rare complication of upper endoscopic procedures described in case reports. These injuries can result in significant morbidity due to the spleen's vascularity and propensity for intraperitoneal bleeds. This review aims to collect data regarding patient characteristics, procedural factors, clinical presentations and treatment courses for analysis. Methods: A systematic review of case reports on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted for splenic injuries following upper endoscopic procedures (as of 14 July 2023). A total of 52 cases from 50 reports were included. All cases were from case reports or series, including conference abstracts, published in English. Cases were excluded if they were: not published in English; dealt with splenic injuries not following upper endoscopic procedures, including colonoscopy; documented a later complication of an upper endoscopic procedure, such as a migrating stent; not case reports or case series, such as review articles. Risk of bias was analyzed with Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Cases were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: The mean age was 56 years, with a median of 55 years, and a range of 21-86 years. Prior abdominal surgeries were identified in 31% of cases (16/52), and chronic pancreatitis in 15% (9/52). Procedural difficulty was reported in 21% (11/52). Most occurred following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (71%, 37/52). Common symptoms were abdominal pain (79%, 41/52), hypotension and/or tachycardia (67%, 35/52), and postoperative drops in hemoglobin (58%, 30/52). Mean time to symptom onset was 21 hours, with a median of 4 hours, and a range of 0-144 hours. Most were diagnosed with computerized tomography (69%, 36/52), followed by laparotomy (17%, 9/52). Most were treated surgically (76%, 40/52). Most patients recovered fully (82%, 42/51). Conclusions: Splenic injury is a rare complication of upper endoscopy that should be considered given the risk for delayed diagnosis and mortality. Most patients presented with abdominal pain and signs of hemorrhagic shock, although many had delayed onset of symptoms. Potential risk factors include prior abdominal surgeries, chronic pancreatitis, and difficult or prolonged procedures. Our review was limited by a low number of cases and inconsistent reporting of variables, which limited our statistical analysis.
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.