Laparoscopic repair using an endoscopic linear stapler for management of iatrogenic colonic perforation during screening colonoscopy.

Kim, Tae Woon; Kim, Hyung Ook; Jung, Keechul; Lee, Sung Ryol

doi:10.5114/wiitm.2018.77719

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there are studies showing that the use of staplers significantly reduces the development of wound infection [20,26,35], there are publications claiming that the technique has no effect [23,25]. In addition, in a clinical study published by Kim et al, they emphasized that laparoscopic endostapler repair is a safe and effective method in iatrogenic colon perforations occurring during colonoscopy [36]. In our study, our wound infection rates of 2.7% was found to be low compared to the literature.…”

Section: Comparing the Laparoscopic And Open Technique Incontrasting

confidence: 58%

Partial cecum resection using endostapler in acute complicated appendicitis with appendiceal base necrosis.

Yılmaz¹,

Dönmez²,

Ferahman³

et al. 2021

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The method of stump closure is controversial in complicated patients, especially with appendix base necrosis or perforation. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of partial cecum resection technique with an endostapler in patients with appendix base necrosis or perforation. Material and methods: Thirty-six patients who underwent laparoscopic partial cecum resection due to appendix base necrosis or perforation between 2015 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. In acute complicated appendicitis with appendiceal base necrosis or perforation, it was performed by laparoscopic partial cecum resection using an endostapler within a safe surgical margin. Demographic characteristics, duration of operation, days of hospital stay, and intra-and post-operative complications were evaluated. Results: The mean age of the patients is 42.72 ±16.69, female/male ratio was 19/17 (52.8%/47.2%). No intraoperative complications developed. Mean operative time and hospital stay were 104.75 ±34.96, 4.58 ±2.82 days, respectively. Post-operative complications developed in 5 (13.7%) patients. One of them was wound infection (2.7%), 2 of them were ileus (5.5%) and 2 patients had an intraabdominal abscess (5.5%). Stapler line leak was not observed in any of the patients. Conclusions: The use of an endostapler in laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective technique in cases where appendix base necrosis, appendix perforation or severe inflammation affects the base of the cecum.

show abstract

Section: Comparing the Laparoscopic And Open Technique Incontrasting

confidence: 58%

Partial cecum resection using endostapler in acute complicated appendicitis with appendiceal base necrosis.

Yılmaz¹,

Dönmez²,

Ferahman³

et al. 2021

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Retrospective studies report bowel resection in up to 30% of cases [ 2 , 3 ]. Laparoscopic repair with an endoscopic linear stapler has also been successfully used in at least 14 patients [ 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods of Surgical Repair for Iatrogenic Sigmoid Colon Perforation Following Colonoscopy: A Case Report and Literature Review

Weinstein,

Gumbs,

Nazir

2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a relatively infrequent yet perilous complication arising from both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies, potentially leading to severe septic complications and increased morbidity or mortality. Given the gravity of potential complications, surgical intervention stands as the principal treatment strategy, with various modalities selected based on clinical discretion. In this context, we present the case of a patient who underwent primary laparoscopic repair following the identification of a sigmoid colon perforation during a routine colonoscopy. Intraoperatively, a Jackson-Pratt drain was placed to facilitate postoperative monitoring and drainage. The patient's hospitalization extended to a total of seven days due to sustained drainage and leukocytosis, highlighting the complexities of managing postoperative complications in such cases. This report underscores the current landscape of published data guiding the surgical management of iatrogenic colonic perforation following colonoscopy and highlights both the existing strengths and gaps within the current body of literature. As colonic perforation remains a critical concern in endoscopic procedures, a comprehensive understanding of optimal surgical interventions is crucial for minimizing patient morbidity and ensuring successful outcomes.

show abstract

“…The advantages are evident, LS has the same therapeutic outcomes, as well as less pain, shorter hospital stay, and less perioperative morbidity, compared with traditional OS. [12][13][14] In general, these have been limited to case reports and single-center studies, the efficacy of LS for the treatment of colonoscopic perforation is still controversial. Therefore, we carried out this meta-analysis, which could be used to help surgeons in choosing a better approach for the management of colonic perforation during colonoscopy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colonoscopic perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of colonoscopic perforation is still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LS versus open surgery (OS) for colonoscopic perforation.Methods: All clinical trials that compared laparoscopic with OS for colonoscopic perforation published in English were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library searches. A modified scale was used to assess the quality of the literature. We analyzed the age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, type of procedure, size of perforation, operation time, postoperative fasting time, hospital stay, postoperative complication morbidity, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed using weighted mean differences for continuous variables, and odds ratios for dichotomous variables.Results: No eligible randomized trials were identified, but eleven nonrandomized trials were analyzed. In the pooled data of 192 patients who underwent LS and 131 OS, there were no significant differences in age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, perforation size, and operative time between the groups. LS group had shorter time of hospital stay and postoperative fasting time, less postoperative complication morbidity, but there were no significant difference in postoperative mortality rate between LS group and OS group.Conclusions: Based on the current meta-analysis, we conclude that LS is a safe and efficacious technique for colonoscopic perforation, with fewer postoperative complications, less hospital mortality, and faster recovery compared with OS.

show abstract

Laparoscopic repair using an endoscopic linear stapler for management of iatrogenic colonic perforation during screening colonoscopy.

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

Partial cecum resection using endostapler in acute complicated appendicitis with appendiceal base necrosis.

Partial cecum resection using endostapler in acute complicated appendicitis with appendiceal base necrosis.

Methods of Surgical Repair for Iatrogenic Sigmoid Colon Perforation Following Colonoscopy: A Case Report and Literature Review

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colonoscopic perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About