ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Surgical Decision-Making in Colonoscopic Perforation: Predictors and Optimal Timing of Intervention in a 20-Year Single-Center Cohort.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsColonoscopic perforation is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication, and optimal selection of patients for surgical intervention remains challenging. This study aimed to identify independent predictors of the need for surgery and to evaluate the association of endoscopic closure attempts and surgical timing on clinical outcomes in patients with colonoscopic perforation.
methodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with colonoscopic perforation managed between June 2005 and September 2025 at a tertiary referral center, including patients referred after perforation at outside institutions. A total of 68 patients were included. Clinical and procedural variables were compared between the non-surgery (n = 39) and surgery (n = 29) groups. Technical success was defined as complete endoscopic closure of the perforation defect during the index procedure. Clinical success was defined as absence of persistent leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, generalized peritonitis, or clinical deterioration requiring additional invasive intervention during hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of the need for surgery. Clinical outcomes were further analyzed according to endoscopic closure attempts, timing of perforation recognition (≤ 6 h vs. > 6 h), and interval from recognition to surgery (≤ 24 h vs. > 24 h).
resultsOf the 68 patients, 29 (42.6%) required surgical intervention. In multivariable analysis, perforation at an outside institution (odds ratio [OR] 11.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.51-74.14) and intraperitoneal perforation (OR 6.73; 95% CI 1.78-34.95) were independently associated with the need for surgery, although confidence intervals were wide, reflecting limited sample size. Diagnostic colonoscopy-related perforations (OR 3.51; 95% CI 0.95-14.01) and calendar era (2005-2015 vs. 2016-2025; OR 4.68; 95% CI 0.90-31.03) were not independently associated with surgical intervention after adjustment. Endoscopic closure was attempted in 46 patients, with technical success achieved in 35 cases (76.1%). The technical success rate was lower for diagnostic perforations (54%) than for therapeutic perforations (85%). The timing of perforation recognition was not associated with surgical requirement or postoperative outcomes. In contrast, among the 29 patients who underwent surgery, primary closure was feasible in 11 of 20 (55.0%) operated within 24 h of recognition, whereas all 9 patients operated after 24 h required bowel resection (p = 0.005).
conclusionThese findings underscore the importance of appropriate patient selection, timely endoscopic closure attempts when feasible, and prompt surgical intervention without delays when surgery is indicated in colonoscopic perforation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41790399What 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.