ArticleJournal of surgical case reports2026
Sigmoid colon perforation following a self-administered cleansing enema: a case report.
Article in Journal of surgical case reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unsupervised self-administered cleansing enemas pose a rare but catastrophic risk of colorectal perforation. We report a 71-year-old man presenting with acute peritonitis immediately after a self-enema for chronic constipation. Notably, he connected the enema hose directly to a household water tap, inadvertently introducing a large volume of water under high mains pressure. Radiography revealed pneumoperitoneum. Emergency laparotomy identified a 5-cm longitudinal blowout perforation on the mesenteric border of the sigmoid colon with fecal contamination. A Hartmann-type procedure (partial sigmoid resection with an end colostomy) was performed. Histopathology confirmed a structurally normal colonic wall devoid of underlying pathologies. The findings were consistent with massive hydrostatic pressure injury, likely exacerbated by distal fecal loading. The patient recovered uneventfully, with no complications at the 30-day follow-up. This case highlights the extreme danger of connecting enema devices directly to domestic water supplies and emphasizes prompt surgery for atypical barogenic perforations.
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.