Gastrointestinal perforation epidemiology and demographics

Revision as of 02:31, 28 January 2018 by Medhat (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Mohammed Abdelwahed M.D[2]

Gastrointestinal perforation Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating gastrointestinal perforation from other diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

X-Ray

CT

MRI

Echocardiography or Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Gastrointestinal perforation epidemiology and demographics On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Gastrointestinal perforation epidemiology and demographics

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Gastrointestinal perforation epidemiology and demographics

CDC on Gastrointestinal perforation epidemiology and demographics

Gastrointestinal perforation epidemiology and demographics in the news

Blogs on Gastrointestinal perforation epidemiology and demographics

Directions to Hospitals Treating Stomach cancer

Risk calculators and risk factors for Gastrointestinal perforation epidemiology and demographics

Overview

Esophageal perforation
  • The incidence of iatrogenic perforation from esophageal instrumentation has decreased, but the number of esophageal perforations from external trauma and spontaneous rupture has increased.
  • In the period from 1950 to 1954 there was 1 perforation per 20,000 admissions.
  • The incidence has now risen to 1 per 8,000 admissions.
Peptic perforation
  • There is lower incidence of peptic ulcer complications during the later years.
  • Incidence rates varied from 1.5 to 7.8/100000 per year regarding perforated peptic ulcers and from 5.2 to 40.2 regarding peptic ulcer bleeding.
Upper endodcopy-related GIT perforation
  • A perforation rate of 0.11 percent for rigid endoscopy contrasts with a 0.03 percent rate for flexible endoscopy. [15,16].
  • Diagnostic endoscopy with a flexible endoscope: 0.03 percent
  • Diagnostic endoscopy with a rigid endoscope: 0.11 percent
  • Stricture dilation: 0.09 to 2.2 percent
  • Sclerotherapy: 1 to 5 percent
  • Pneumatic dilation for achalasia: 2 to 6 percen
  • The incidence of perforation related to endoscopy increases with procedural complexity. [14].
  • Mortality rates are 20 percent. [2]
Colonic perforation
  • The incidence of Colonic perforation (CP) could be as low as 0.016% of all diagnostic colonoscopy procedures[6] and may be seen in up to 5% of therapeutic colonoscopies[7,8].
  • the incidence of CP following flexible sigmoidoscopy varies from 0.027% to 0.088%. [1,9-12]
  • Rectal perforation during colonoscopic retroflexion was reported to be around 0.01%. [13]
Colonoscopy-related GIT perforation
  • Screening colonoscopy: 0.01 to 0.1 percent
  • Anastomotic stricture dilation: 0 to 6 percent
  • Crohn disease stricture dilation: 0 to 18 percent
  • Stent placement: 4 percent
  • Colonic decompression tube placement: 2 percent
  • Colonic endoscopic mucosal resection 0 to 5 percent
  • Mortality rates from iatrogenic colonic perforation range from 0 to 0.65 percent. [60]
  • The incidence of perforation during colonoscopy increases as the complexity of the procedure increases and is estimated at 1:1000 for therapeutic colonoscopy and 1:1400 for overall colonoscopies.
  • The rectosigmoid area was most commonly perforated followed by the cecum, 53 percent and 24 percent, respectivaly. [141]
  • most perforations were due to blunt injury, 27 percent of perforations occurred with polypectomy, and 18 percent of perforations were produced by thermal injury. Almost 25 percent of patients presented in a delayed fashion.

References