SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Endoscopic versus surgical management for iatrogenic colonic perforations: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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
backgroundIatrogenic colonic perforation is a rare but potentially catastrophic complication of colonoscopy (0.016-0.2% diagnostic; 0.15-5% therapeutic) with reported mortality of 15-25%. Rates may increase with expanding colonoscopy volume and advanced therapeutic interventions. Endoscopic closure is increasingly used, yet comparative outcomes remain uncertain.
methodsRegistered in PROSPERO (CRD420251233077). We searched six databases from inception to November 2025 for adult observational cohorts comparing endoscopic closure versus surgery. Outcomes included treatment success, mortality, major morbidity, reoperation, length of stay, and fasting duration. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias using ROBINS-I. Random-effects models pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD); GRADE rated certainty. Sensitivity and geographic subgroup analyses assessed robustness and effect modification.
resultsFour retrospective cohorts (n = 123; 52 endoscopic, 71 surgical) from Portugal, Korea, and Malaysia were included across care settings. Treatment success showed no clear difference (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.06; I
conclusionsIn observational cohorts, endoscopic closure was typically used for immediately recognized, smaller perforations in favorable clinical conditions, whereas surgery was preferentially used for delayed diagnosis, larger defects, or suspected contamination, introducing substantial confounding by indication. Accordingly, the pooled estimates should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalence. In carefully selected patients (immediate recognition, < 2 cm, no generalized peritonitis/instability), endoscopic closure appears to be a viable first-line strategy and may reduce length of stay. Prospective multicenter studies with standardized definitions and rigorous confounder adjustment are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41814000What 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.