Surgical endoscopy · 2026
Endoscopic versus surgical management for iatrogenic colonic perforations: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mirza Wajahat, Khan Mehak Ejaz, Iqbal Hania, Khan Alishbah, Badshah Maaz Bin, Moeen-Ud-Din Muhammad Bilal, Khan Hadi Mohammad
Аннотация
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.
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.