Endoscopic closure of colon perforation compared to surgery in a porcine model: a randomized controlled trial (with videos)

Gottumukkala S. Raju, Annette Fritscher-Ravens, Richard I. Rothstein, Paul Swain, Andres Gelrud, Ijaz Ahmed, Guillermo Gomez, Markus Winny, Thomas Sonnanstine, Maria Bergström, Per Ola Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic closure of inadvertent or intentional colon perforations might be valuable if comparable to surgical closure. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic closure of a 4-cm colon perforation in a porcine model with surgical closure in a multicenter study. Setting: University hospitals in the United States and Europe. Design and Interventions: After creating a 4-cm linear colon perforation, the animals were randomized to either endoscopic or surgical closure. The total procedure time from the beginning of perforation to the completion of procedure was measured. The animals were euthanized after 2 weeks to evaluate healing, unless there was a complication. Results: Fifty-four animals were randomized to either surgical or endoscopic closure of colon perforation. Eight animals developed complications, and 7 of these were euthanized before 2 weeks. Twenty-three animals in each group survived for 2 weeks. Surgical closure of the perforation was successful in all animals in that group, and endoscopic closure was successful in 25 of the 27 animals. The median procedure time was shorter in the surgery group compared to the endoscopy group (35 vs 44 minutes, P = .016). Peritonitis, local adhesions, and leak test results were comparable in both groups. Distant adhesions were less frequent in the endoscopic closure group (26.1% vs 56.5%, P = .03). Five of the 186 T-tags (2.7%) were noted in the adjacent viscera. Limitation: This porcine study does not mimic clean colon perforation in humans; it mimics dirty colon perforation in humans. Conclusions: Endoscopic closure of a 4-cm colon perforation was comparable to surgery, and this technique can be potentially used for closure of intentional or inadvertent colon perforations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)324-332
Number of pages9
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume68
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2008

Fingerprint

Colon
Swine
Randomized Controlled Trials
Anatomic Models
Viscera
Peritonitis
Endoscopy
Multicenter Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Raju, G. S., Fritscher-Ravens, A., Rothstein, R. I., Swain, P., Gelrud, A., Ahmed, I., ... Park, P. O. (2008). Endoscopic closure of colon perforation compared to surgery in a porcine model: a randomized controlled trial (with videos). Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 68(2), 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.03.006

Endoscopic closure of colon perforation compared to surgery in a porcine model : a randomized controlled trial (with videos). / Raju, Gottumukkala S.; Fritscher-Ravens, Annette; Rothstein, Richard I.; Swain, Paul; Gelrud, Andres; Ahmed, Ijaz; Gomez, Guillermo; Winny, Markus; Sonnanstine, Thomas; Bergström, Maria; Park, Per Ola.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 68, No. 2, 08.2008, p. 324-332.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Raju, GS, Fritscher-Ravens, A, Rothstein, RI, Swain, P, Gelrud, A, Ahmed, I, Gomez, G, Winny, M, Sonnanstine, T, Bergström, M & Park, PO 2008, 'Endoscopic closure of colon perforation compared to surgery in a porcine model: a randomized controlled trial (with videos)', Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.03.006
Raju, Gottumukkala S. ; Fritscher-Ravens, Annette ; Rothstein, Richard I. ; Swain, Paul ; Gelrud, Andres ; Ahmed, Ijaz ; Gomez, Guillermo ; Winny, Markus ; Sonnanstine, Thomas ; Bergström, Maria ; Park, Per Ola. / Endoscopic closure of colon perforation compared to surgery in a porcine model : a randomized controlled trial (with videos). In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008 ; Vol. 68, No. 2. pp. 324-332.
@article{82f338f7ddc844dd971b5382c2c8930b,
title = "Endoscopic closure of colon perforation compared to surgery in a porcine model: a randomized controlled trial (with videos)",
abstract = "Background: Endoscopic closure of inadvertent or intentional colon perforations might be valuable if comparable to surgical closure. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic closure of a 4-cm colon perforation in a porcine model with surgical closure in a multicenter study. Setting: University hospitals in the United States and Europe. Design and Interventions: After creating a 4-cm linear colon perforation, the animals were randomized to either endoscopic or surgical closure. The total procedure time from the beginning of perforation to the completion of procedure was measured. The animals were euthanized after 2 weeks to evaluate healing, unless there was a complication. Results: Fifty-four animals were randomized to either surgical or endoscopic closure of colon perforation. Eight animals developed complications, and 7 of these were euthanized before 2 weeks. Twenty-three animals in each group survived for 2 weeks. Surgical closure of the perforation was successful in all animals in that group, and endoscopic closure was successful in 25 of the 27 animals. The median procedure time was shorter in the surgery group compared to the endoscopy group (35 vs 44 minutes, P = .016). Peritonitis, local adhesions, and leak test results were comparable in both groups. Distant adhesions were less frequent in the endoscopic closure group (26.1{\%} vs 56.5{\%}, P = .03). Five of the 186 T-tags (2.7{\%}) were noted in the adjacent viscera. Limitation: This porcine study does not mimic clean colon perforation in humans; it mimics dirty colon perforation in humans. Conclusions: Endoscopic closure of a 4-cm colon perforation was comparable to surgery, and this technique can be potentially used for closure of intentional or inadvertent colon perforations.",
author = "Raju, {Gottumukkala S.} and Annette Fritscher-Ravens and Rothstein, {Richard I.} and Paul Swain and Andres Gelrud and Ijaz Ahmed and Guillermo Gomez and Markus Winny and Thomas Sonnanstine and Maria Bergstr{\"o}m and Park, {Per Ola}",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2008.03.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "68",
pages = "324--332",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoscopic closure of colon perforation compared to surgery in a porcine model

T2 - a randomized controlled trial (with videos)

AU - Raju, Gottumukkala S.

AU - Fritscher-Ravens, Annette

AU - Rothstein, Richard I.

AU - Swain, Paul

AU - Gelrud, Andres

AU - Ahmed, Ijaz

AU - Gomez, Guillermo

AU - Winny, Markus

AU - Sonnanstine, Thomas

AU - Bergström, Maria

AU - Park, Per Ola

PY - 2008/8

Y1 - 2008/8

N2 - Background: Endoscopic closure of inadvertent or intentional colon perforations might be valuable if comparable to surgical closure. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic closure of a 4-cm colon perforation in a porcine model with surgical closure in a multicenter study. Setting: University hospitals in the United States and Europe. Design and Interventions: After creating a 4-cm linear colon perforation, the animals were randomized to either endoscopic or surgical closure. The total procedure time from the beginning of perforation to the completion of procedure was measured. The animals were euthanized after 2 weeks to evaluate healing, unless there was a complication. Results: Fifty-four animals were randomized to either surgical or endoscopic closure of colon perforation. Eight animals developed complications, and 7 of these were euthanized before 2 weeks. Twenty-three animals in each group survived for 2 weeks. Surgical closure of the perforation was successful in all animals in that group, and endoscopic closure was successful in 25 of the 27 animals. The median procedure time was shorter in the surgery group compared to the endoscopy group (35 vs 44 minutes, P = .016). Peritonitis, local adhesions, and leak test results were comparable in both groups. Distant adhesions were less frequent in the endoscopic closure group (26.1% vs 56.5%, P = .03). Five of the 186 T-tags (2.7%) were noted in the adjacent viscera. Limitation: This porcine study does not mimic clean colon perforation in humans; it mimics dirty colon perforation in humans. Conclusions: Endoscopic closure of a 4-cm colon perforation was comparable to surgery, and this technique can be potentially used for closure of intentional or inadvertent colon perforations.

AB - Background: Endoscopic closure of inadvertent or intentional colon perforations might be valuable if comparable to surgical closure. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic closure of a 4-cm colon perforation in a porcine model with surgical closure in a multicenter study. Setting: University hospitals in the United States and Europe. Design and Interventions: After creating a 4-cm linear colon perforation, the animals were randomized to either endoscopic or surgical closure. The total procedure time from the beginning of perforation to the completion of procedure was measured. The animals were euthanized after 2 weeks to evaluate healing, unless there was a complication. Results: Fifty-four animals were randomized to either surgical or endoscopic closure of colon perforation. Eight animals developed complications, and 7 of these were euthanized before 2 weeks. Twenty-three animals in each group survived for 2 weeks. Surgical closure of the perforation was successful in all animals in that group, and endoscopic closure was successful in 25 of the 27 animals. The median procedure time was shorter in the surgery group compared to the endoscopy group (35 vs 44 minutes, P = .016). Peritonitis, local adhesions, and leak test results were comparable in both groups. Distant adhesions were less frequent in the endoscopic closure group (26.1% vs 56.5%, P = .03). Five of the 186 T-tags (2.7%) were noted in the adjacent viscera. Limitation: This porcine study does not mimic clean colon perforation in humans; it mimics dirty colon perforation in humans. Conclusions: Endoscopic closure of a 4-cm colon perforation was comparable to surgery, and this technique can be potentially used for closure of intentional or inadvertent colon perforations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=47749117925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=47749117925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2008.03.006

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2008.03.006

M3 - Article

C2 - 18561931

AN - SCOPUS:47749117925

VL - 68

SP - 324

EP - 332

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 2

ER -