Scholarlink

Background <p>Iatrogenic 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.</p> Methods <p>Registered 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.</p> Results <p>Four retrospective cohorts (<i>n</i> = 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>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%; low certainty). Mortality was rare and imprecise (8 events; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.06–1.16; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%; very low certainty). Hospital stay was shorter with endoscopic management (MD − 9.23&#xa0;days, 95% CI − 13.74 to − 4.73; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 43%; low certainty). Fasting duration did not differ significantly and was heterogeneous. No geographic subgroup effect was detected (<i>P</i> = 0.95). Sensitivity analysis supported robustness, except for hospital-stay heterogeneity driven by referred cases in one study.</p> Conclusions <p>In 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, &lt; 2&#xa0;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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Endoscopic versus surgical management for iatrogenic colonic perforations: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月11日

查看全文
  • Wajahat Mirza,
  • Mehak Ejaz Khan,
  • Hania Iqbal,
  • Alishbah Khan,
  • Maaz Bin Badshah,
  • Muhammad Bilal Moeen-Ud-Din,
  • Hadi Mohammad Khan

摘要

Background

Iatrogenic 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.

Methods

Registered 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.

Results

Four 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; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Mortality was rare and imprecise (8 events; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.06–1.16; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). Hospital stay was shorter with endoscopic management (MD − 9.23 days, 95% CI − 13.74 to − 4.73; I2 = 43%; low certainty). Fasting duration did not differ significantly and was heterogeneous. No geographic subgroup effect was detected (P = 0.95). Sensitivity analysis supported robustness, except for hospital-stay heterogeneity driven by referred cases in one study.

Conclusions

In 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.