6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Presentation and Management of Splenic Injury After Colonoscopy : A Systematic Review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study reviewed all single experience of splenic injuries after colonoscopy in the last 40 years to define the possible risk factors and the management of this complication. A MEDLINE and a PubMed search was undertaken to identify articles in English, French, Spanish, and Italian from 1974 to 2012 using the key words: "splenic injury," "splenic rupture," and "colonoscopy." Data were analyzed using descriptive statistic. A total of 103 cases have been described in 75 reports. The majority of the patients were women (71.56%) and 6.85% underwent previous pelvic surgery. The mean age was 63 years (range, 29 to 90 y). About 61 of the 103 studies (59.2%) reported the presence or the absence of previous abdominal surgery and within these, only 31 of 61 patients (50.82%) underwent previous abdominal surgery. In this review, over half of the patients with splenic injury underwent colonoscopy for routine surveillance (62.75%), and only one third of the splenic injures were associated with biopsy or polypectomy. The majority of patients (78.57%) developed symptoms within the first 24 hours after colonoscopy and in a minority of cases (21.43%), there was a delayed presentation 24 hours after colonoscopy. Computed tomography was used as the primary modality to make the diagnosis in 69 of 98 cases (70.41%) and as a confirmatory test in many additional cases. Twenty-six of 102 patients (25.49%) were treated by conservative methods, whereas the majority of patients (69.61%) underwent splenectomy as a definitive treatment. Because of possible medicolegal implications, the endoscopists should consider mentioning splenic injury on the consent form of colonoscopy after bowel perforation and bleeding, particularly in higher risk patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A life threatening complication after colonoscopy.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Positive predictive value for polyps detected at screening CT colonography.

            To determine the positive predictive value (PPV) for polyps detected at CT colonography (CTC). Assessment of 739 colorectal lesions >or=6 mm detected prospectively at CTC screening in 479 patients was performed. By-polyp PPV was analyzed according to small (6-9 mm) versus large (>or=10 mm) size; morphology (sessile/pedunculated/flat); diagnostic confidence level (3 = most confident, 1 = least confident); and histology. By-patient PPV was analyzed at various polyp size thresholds. By-polyp PPV for CTC-detected lesions >or=6 mm, 6-9 mm, and >or=10 mm was 91.6% (677/739), 90.1% (410/451), and 92.7% (267/288), respectively (p = 0.4). By-polyp PPV according to sessile, pedunculated, flat, and mass-like morphology was 92.5% (441/477), 96.5% (139/144), 77.7% (73/94), and 97.6% (40/41), respectively (p or=6 mm was 92% for CTC screening. Increased diagnostic confidence and polypoid (non-flat) morphology correlated with a higher PPV, whereas small versus large polyp size had very little effect.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Splenic injury as a complication of endoscopy: two case reports and a literature review.

              Two cases of splenic injury - one after a difficult colonoscopy and the other after routine ERCP - are reported. Splenic injury as a complication of endoscopic procedures is relatively rare, but over the past several years this complication has been increasingly reported. Review of the literature revealed 11 cases occurring after colonoscopy and one after ERCP. Although most of the patients presented with acute abdominal symptoms, some had mild vague symptoms. In two cases the injury was overlooked entirely. Diagnosis was established at laparotomy in four cases, by CT in four, by ultrasonography in two, by chance observation in two, by angiography in one and by paracentesis in one. All patients except the most recent three reported underwent surgery, with one mortality occurring three weeks after the operation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques
                Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1530-4515
                2014
                April 2014
                : 24
                : 2
                : 95-102
                Article
                10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182a83493
                24686342
                41db46fa-91b2-47fa-91da-13f072801a49
                © 2014
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article