CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2018; 06(03): E308-E312
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-123932
Case report
Owner and Copyright © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

How familiar are we with decision-making concerning the treatment of perforation after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the colon? A case report

George Tribonias
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
,
Niki Daferera
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
,
Margarita-Eleni Manola
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
,
Rikard Svernlöv
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
,
Simone Ignatova
2   Department of Clinical Pathology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
,
Henrik Hjortswang
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 17 July 2017

accepted after revision 27 October 2017

Publication Date:
01 March 2018 (online)

Abstract

Background and study aims We describe a case of perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) that was treated conservatively. We would like to highlight the importance of decision-making mainly based on the endoscopist's point of view in combination with the surgical consultation. Although the radiological imaging is always needed, it cannot solely lead to a decision for operation. Intraperitoneal gas in computed tomography is not always associated with a hole in the endoscopic field and could be possibly explained from a “balloon” phenomenon. The amount of extraluminal air after an EMR does not correlate reciprocally with patient's pain after the procedure. Even though perforation is a radiological diagnosis and endoscopists should be aware of the common post-EMR radiological findings, the surgical examination is mandatory and should be coupled with the endoscopic opinion in order to guide appropriately the treatment in patients with acute pain.

 
  • References

  • 1 Bourke MJ. Endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: a practical guide. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 13: 35-49
  • 2 Swan MP, Bourke MJ, Alexander S. et al. Large refractory colonic polyps: is it time to change our practice? A prospective study of the clinical and economic impact of a tertiary referral colonic mucosal resection and polypectomy service (with videos). Gastrointest Endoscopy 2009; 70: 1128-1136
  • 3 Heldwein W, Dollhopf M, Rosch T. et al. The Munich Polypectomy Study (MUPS): prospective analysis of complications and risks factors in 4000 colonic snare polypectomies. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 1116-1122
  • 4 Stephenson JA, Crookdake J, Jepson S. et al. Imaging findings post-colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. J Radiol Case Rep 2013; 7: 27-32
  • 5 Ma MX, Bourke MJ. Complications of endoscopic polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic dissection in the colon. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30: 749-767
  • 6 Heerasing N, Dowling D, Alexander S. Abdominal pain post endoscopic mucosal resection: Treat the patient not the CT scan. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 16: 455-456
  • 7 Paspatis GA, Dumonceau JM, Barthet M. et al. Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 693-711