|Year : 2017 | Volume
| Issue : 6 | Page : 195-199
Long-term follow-up for patients with colonic perforation due to colonoscopy: From clinical and medicolegal viewpoints
Tzu-Chun Chen, Ji-Shiang Hung, Been-Ren Lin, John Huang, Jin-Tung Liang
Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
|Date of Submission||15-May-2017|
|Date of Decision||17-Jul-2017|
|Date of Acceptance||13-Sep-2017|
|Date of Web Publication||08-Dec-2017|
Dr. Jin-Tung Liang
Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, No 7, Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background: This retrospective study analyzes the clinicopathologic features and medicolegal debates on this complication.
Methods: There were 29 records of colonic perforations, whose charts were retrospectively reviewed.
Results: A total of 26 perforations occurred as a result of diagnostic colonoscopy, and three occurred after therapeutic colonoscopy. Eight perforations were diagnosed immediately during the procedure, based on the revelation of intraperitoneal organs with bleeding of bowel wall on the colonoscopic monitor. Twenty patients were diagnosed as a hollow-organ perforation within 12 h after the completion of colonoscopy, whereas one perforation was found more than 24 h after colonoscopy. Abdominal pain and distention are the most common symptoms. All the patients underwent emergency surgery. One patient had wound infection, and two patients had leakage of the repair site. One patient aged 80 died of pulmonary septic complication. Our hospital paid all additional expenses which were not covered by the National Health Insurance Bureau for all patients, ranging from 500.0 to 1500.0 US dollars (mean ± standard deviation, 549.0 ± 145.0 US dollars). Four patients (13.8%) asked for further compensation of the complication and one litigated.
Conclusions: Iatrogenic colonic perforation due to endoscopy is potentially lethal, especially for aged patients. Some patients and their family viewed the perforation as malpractice and asked for compensations. Usually, the primary repair of the perforation site is safe, and long-term follow-up reveals no sequelae after adequate treatment.
Keywords: Colon perforation, colonoscopy, iatrogenic
|How to cite this article:|
Chen TC, Hung JS, Lin BR, Huang J, Liang JT. Long-term follow-up for patients with colonic perforation due to colonoscopy: From clinical and medicolegal viewpoints. Formos J Surg 2017;50:195-9
|How to cite this URL:|
Chen TC, Hung JS, Lin BR, Huang J, Liang JT. Long-term follow-up for patients with colonic perforation due to colonoscopy: From clinical and medicolegal viewpoints. Formos J Surg [serial online] 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 8];50:195-9. Available from: http://www.e-fjs.org/text.asp?2017/50/6/195/220350
| Introduction|| |
During the medical career as an endoscopist, the physician seems to be inevitable to run the risk of being accused of iatrogenic colonic perforation. The incidence of perforation has been reported to range from 0.04% to 0.9% in diagnostic colonoscopy, and from 0.06% to 0.7% in therapeutic colonoscopy.,,,,,, Management of patients with perforation has been evolving. Some authors believe that all patients with a colonic perforation after colonoscopy should be immediately managed with surgery. Others suggested selective management depending on whether the perforation happened during diagnostic or therapeutic settings, degree of bowel preparation, and the presence of signs of peritonitis.,,
Since iatrogenic perforation may be viewed as a result of malpractice, successful management of perforation will help the endoscopists circumvent the medicolegal problem. Moreover, although there had been some reports discussing the outcome of these patients, only very few studies discussed the medicolegal issues. Therefore, the experiences for managing such patients in this study will be helpful not only in facilitating the future prevention and appropriate treatment of this complication but also in ameliorating the medicolegal conflict, if it unavoidably occurs.
| Patients and Methods|| |
A retrospective chart review of all patients with colonic perforation due to colonoscopy was undertaken. All patients underwent traditional sedation-free colonoscopy. The data collected included the patients' demography aspect, endoscopic procedure, diagnosis, treatment, outcome, and the amount of compensation if exists. The continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee of the institute. Informed written consent was obtained from all patients prior to their enrollment in this study.
| Results|| |
From January 1995 to December 2004, 7722 colonoscopies were carried out at Division of Colorectal Surgery of National Taiwan University Hospital, resulting in 29 (0.38%) colonic perforations. The patients' demographic data and comorbidities were listed in [Table 1]. The indications for colonoscopy included screening, anal bleeding, obstruction of bowel, tumor, and polypectomy. Twenty-six perforations occurred as a result of diagnostic colonoscopies, and three perforations occurred after polypectomies.
Diagnosis of perforation
Eight perforations were diagnosed during the colonoscopy, based on the revelation of intraperitoneal organs with colonic intraluminal bleeding on the colonoscopic monitor. The remaining 21 patients complained of abdominal pain, distention, or both. Because of their abdominal discomfort, they visited the hospital again, and a series of work-up was undertaken, and the final diagnosis was reached. One 80-year-old patient presented with septic shock and respiratory failure when he came back to hospital 24 h after the colonoscopy. In 11 of the 21 patients, pneumoperitoneum can be demonstrated by chest roentgenograms or computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen.
Operation was performed within 12 h after the colonoscopy in 28 patients, and 24 h after the procedure in one patient. The choice of surgical approach depended on each surgeon's personal convictions about this kind of complication and was not dictated by any predetermined code. The surgical methods were summarized in [Table 2].
Among these 29 patients, the location of perforation was in the left-sided colon except one in the cecum after polypectomy [Table 3]. The size of perforation ranged from 0.2 to 4.0 cm, with the median being 1.63 ± 1.13 cm. In one patient, only pneumoretroperitoneum was found, but without contamination of the peritoneal cavity.
The hospital stay was 14.2 ± 12.2 days (range, 8.0–40.0 days). The postoperative course was uneventful in 25 (86.2%) patients. One patient had wound infection, and two patients had leakage of the repair site. One patient aged 80 died of pulmonary complications and uncontrolled sepsis. The overall mortality rate is 3.7%.
The health insurance system in Taiwan covered more than 90% of the fee of medical treatment in all the patients. Our hospital paid the remaining fee for all the patients, ranging from 500.0 to 1500.0 US dollars (mean ± SD, 549.0 ± 145.0 US dollars).
Four patients (13.8%) asked for further compensation of the perforation, which they viewed as malpractice. All four patients had undergone primary repair without a diverting colostomy, and their postoperative courses were uneventful. The attending endoscopist, the colorectal surgeons, lawyers, and social workers participated in the negotiation in this situation. Three patients compromised after our hospital had paid each of them about US 2000.0 dollars. The remaining one patient did not concede and litigated for indemnification. Eventually, our hospital paid her 10,000.0 US dollars, and she revoked the lawsuit.
| Discussion|| |
Colonoscopy has been widely used since the 1970s as the primary diagnostic tool for the patients with suspected lesions of large bowel. This procedure carries a relatively low risk of perforation. There is still lacking a consensus on the management of this iatrogenic injury. To determine the optimal treatment, we analyzed clinicopathologic data as well as medicolegal disputes in our hospital. Some authors claimed that the treatment strategies should be determined based on the patient's general condition, the peritoneal hygiene, the underlying mechanism causing perforation, and the size of perforation. It is our opinion that not only this clinical factors but also the avoidance of the potential dispute should be taken into consideration.
Colonoscopic perforation may be due to direct perforation by the forceful insertion of the instrument tip, antimesenteric tears secondary to “slide-by” technique, pneumatic perforation due to excessive air inflation, or it may be caused by biopsy, diathermy, or polypectomy., In our series, perforations were usually the results of mechanical trauma by an instrument and were mostly in the left colon. Remarkably, five patients had the previous major abdominal surgery, and the presence of bowel adhesion was considered. The most frequent site of perforation in our series is the junction of the rectum and sigmoid colon, consistent with other reports., This can be explained by the redundancy of sigmoid colon with relatively narrowed bowel lumen, the higher incidence of diverticular disease, and the acute anatomical angle of the rectosigmoid junction.
Although no patient in our series suffered from perforation due to air inflation, Kozarek et al. have shown that during colonoscopy intraluminal pressure may be generated to such an enough level as to rupture the colon, especially in the presence of underlying diseases., Experimental studies in human cadavers have shown that cecum, transverse colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum are in the decreasing order of frequency of susceptibility to rupture. The pressure required to rupture, the cecum was the lowest (81 mmHg), compared with 169 mmHg for the sigmoid colon.
The clinical presentation of colonic perforation varies greatly and depends on the size, site and mechanism of perforation, the underlying pathology, degree of peritoneal contamination, and the patient's general condition. Except those patients diagnosed immediately during the endoscopic procedures, abdominal pain, either localized or diffuse, was the most common symptom in our series. The onset of abdominal pain was usually within 12 h after the colonoscopy but may be delayed up to 24 h in our series. It has been a report of delayed cecal perforation with pain onset 2 days after the colonoscopy. Gedebou et al. showed that other clinical symptoms of colonic perforation include fever, bleeding, abdominal distention, nausea/vomiting, and subcutaneous emphysema  in decreasing frequency. To improve the early diagnostic rate, it needs to emphasized that when the patients complained of abdominal discomfort after colonoscopy, the diagnosis of colonic perforation should be therefore kept in mind.
In our series, pneumoperitoneum was demonstrated by chest X-rays in only half of the patients and facilitated the surgical intervention. Remarkably, the perforation may be present without extravasated air. It is worth noting that 10 of our patients were subjected to laparotomy based merely on the clinical suspicion of perforation. Failure to detect pneumoperitoneum on chest roentgenograms does not exclude the necessity of laparotomy. Furthermore, the quantity of intraperitoneal air is related to the duration of perforation. The size of bowel perforation found at surgery did not correlate with the amount of free air found on preoperative CT scan.
It has been proposed that perforations caused by diagnostic colonoscopy warrant surgical intervention, whereas conservative treatment should be first considered in stable patients with perforations as a result of therapeutic colonoscopy ,, However, it had been reported that conservative management of colonoscopic perforation can be misleading, resulting in mortality. Colonic perforations due to colonoscopy were all managed by emergency surgery in our series. Our main concern is that when medical treatment fails, delayed surgery can deteriorate the patient's prognosis, and therefore intensify the conflict between patients and doctors. If patients died after the initial attempt of conservative treatment, their family may regard conservative treatment as the surgeon's deliberate delay in rescuing the patient's life. The treatment outcome in our series is acceptable, resulting in the mortality rate of only 3.7%. However, about 14% of the patients still thought the hospital should indemnify for the iatrogenic colon perforation, even though they had an uneventful recovery from the injury.
The surgical treatment can be either single-procedure or double-staged methods. Single-procedure surgery can be used when it is performed at an early stage, and the results are usually good as long as the patient is with the following favorable factors: a small-sized perforation, proper colonic preparation, and minimal peritoneal contamination. Our series showed that primary repair without a diverting colostomy was a satisfactory surgical strategy, resulting in leakage of repair site in two patients and mortality in one elderly patient. This low mortality rate may be attributed to adequate mechanical bowel preparation before the due colonoscopic examination, early diagnosis and prompt treatment of perforation. However, one 80-year-old patient still died of this complication. In elderly patients with coexisting medical conditions, the outlook remains grim. A diverting colostomy sometimes increases morbidity,, particularly because it is sometimes permanent., However, double-staged surgery should be considered when the risk of leakage is high, such as a large amount of peritoneal excrement exists, the patients are undernourished, and/or they have many underlying diseases. The mortality seems to depend more on the general condition of the individual patient than on the type of surgery used.
All the patients in the present study underwent traditional open laparotomy to manage their colonoscopic complications. However, many authors carried out laparoscopic treatment for this iatrogenic perforation. Some authors showed that laparoscopic treatment brought a definitive treatment of this major complication in a minimally invasive way, and recommended the use of laparoscopic approach in substitution for more extensive procedures., However, it still needs further large-scaled randomized studies to establish the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic approaches.
Currently, sedative and analgesic medications have been used widely to provide patients comfort to reduce procedure time and improve examination quality during colonoscopy.,, In the gastrointestinal department, around 80% of patients whose colonoscopy was performed under sedation. Therefore, the present article could provide the historical data for the evaluation of the cost performance of sedative colonoscopy, which is nowadays nearly a routine procedure during daily practice.
Four patients (13.8%) asked for further compensation of the perforation, even after they had undergone primary repair without a diverting colostomy, and their postoperative course was uneventful. In contrast, other more severe cases did not ask for further compensation. The reasons are that the patients will sue or not depends on the attitude of colonoscopists before and after the examination. If the patient is well informed before the examination regarding the possible complications, feel the friendly attitude, and gentle manipulation from the examiner, and has received the warm care when postexamination abdominal pain suggestive of colonic perforation occurred, usually they can be appeased, and the medicolegal can be prevented.
| Conclusion|| |
Colonoscopy carries a low risk of colonic perforation which is sometimes lethal. Forceful insertion of instrument, overinflation of air, and/or careless use of electrocautery should be avoided. The diagnosis may be based on clinical presentations of peritonitis and/or image findings. Immediate one-staged surgery results in an acceptable low mortality and morbidity rate. Some patients and their family may view the iatrogenic injury as malpractice and litigate for compensation, even though recovery from the injury is smooth.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Berci G, Panish JF, Schapiro M, Corlin R. Complications of colonoscopy and polypectomy. Report of the Southern California Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastroenterology 1974;67:584-5.
Christie JP, Marrazzo J 3rd
. “Mini-perforation” of the colon – Not all postpolypectomy perforations require laparotomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:132-5.
Frühmorgen P, Demling L. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy in the federal republic of Germany. Results of an inquiry. Endoscopy 1979;11:146-50.
Macrae FA, Tan KG, Williams CB. Towards safer colonoscopy: A report on the complications of 5000 diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopies. Gut 1983;24:376-83.
Nivatvongs S. Complications in colonoscopic polypectomy. An experience with 1,555 polypectomies. Dis Colon Rectum 1986;29:825-30.
Rogers BH, Silvis SE, Nebel OT, Sugawa C, Mandelstam P. Complications of flexible fiberoptic colonoscopy and polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1975;22:73-7.
Smith LE. Fiberoptic colonoscopy: Complications of colonoscopy and polypectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1976;19:407-12.
Gedebou TM, Wong RA, Rappaport WD, Jaffe P, Kahsai D, Hunter GC, et al.
Clinical presentation and management of iatrogenic colon perforations. Am J Surg 1996;172:454-7.
Damore LJ 2nd
, Rantis PC, Vernava AM 3rd
, Longo WE. Colonoscopic perforations. Etiology, diagnosis, and management. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:1308-14.
Kavin H, Sinicrope F, Esker AH. Management of perforation of the colon at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1992;87:161-7.
Orsoni P, Berdah S, Verrier C, Caamano A, Sastre B, Boutboul R, et al.
Colonic perforation due to colonoscopy: A retrospective study of 48 cases. Endoscopy 1997;29:160-4.
Hall C, Dorricott NJ, Donovan IA, Neoptolemos JP. Colon perforation during colonoscopy: Surgical versus conservative management. Br J Surg 1991;78:542-4.
Vincent M, Smith LE. Management of perforation due to colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:61-3.
Kozarek RA, Earnest DL, Silverstein ME, Smith RG. Air-pressure-induced colon injury during diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 1980;78:7-14.
Loggan M, Moeller DD. Delayed perforation of the cecum after diagnostic biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 1984;79:933-4.
Bulas DI, Taylor GA, Eichelberger MR. The value of CT in detecting bowel perforation in children after blunt abdominal trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;153:561-4.
Lo AY, Beaton HL. Selective management of colonoscopic perforations. J Am Coll Surg 1994;179:333-7.
Carpio G, Albu E, Gumbs MA, Gerst PH. Management of colonic perforation after colonoscopy. Report of three cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:624-6.
Soliman A, Grundman M. Conservative management of colonoscopic perforation can be misleading. Endoscopy 1998;30:790-2.
Farley DR, Bannon MP, Zietlow SP, Pemberton JH, Ilstrup DM, Larson DR, et al.
Management of colonoscopic perforations. Mayo Clin Proc 1997;72:729-33.
Waye JD, Kahn O, Auerbach ME. Complications of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N
Nelson RL, Abcarian H, Prasad ML. Iatrogenic perforation of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 1982;25:305-8.
Adair HM, Hishon S. The management of colonoscopic and sigmoidoscopic perforation of the large bowel. Br J Surg 1981;68:415-6.
Jentschura D, Raute M, Winter J, Henkel T, Kraus M, Manegold BC, et al.
Complications in endoscopy of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Therapy and prognosis. Surg Endosc 1994;8:672-6.
Regan MC, Boyle B, Stephens RB. Laparoscopic repair of colonic perforation occurring during colonoscopy. Br J Surg 1994;81:1073.
Wullstein C, Köppen M, Gross E. Laparoscopic treatment of colonic perforations related to colonoscopy. Surg Endosc 1999;13:484-7.
Tsai MS, Su YH, Liang JT, Lai HS, Lee PH. Patient factors predicting the completion of sedation-free colonoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology 2008;55:1606-8.
Al-Zubaidi AM, Al-Shadadi AA, Alghamdy HU, Alzobady AH, Al-Qureshi LA, Al-Bakri IM, et al.
Retrospective comparison of sedated and non-sedated colonoscopy in an outpatient practice. Indian J Gastroenterol 2016;35:129-32.
Childers RE, Williams JL, Sonnenberg A. Practice patterns of sedation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:503-11.
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]