A120 ENDOSCOPIC CLOSURE TECHNIQUES FOLLOWING ACUTE IATROGENIC PERFORATION -- AN UPDATED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Iatrogenic perforation is arguably the most feared adverse event associated with endoscopy. Current American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines recommend endoscopic closure as the first-line treatment strategy. Historically, this has been achieved using through-the-scope clips (TTSC). Given the emergence of alternative endoscopic closure techniques including over-the-scope clips (OTSC) and endoscopic suturing, we sought to provide an updated review of the literature. Purpose To review endoscopic closure techniques following iatrogenic perforation during screening or therapeutic endoscopy. Method Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines, an electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE from June 1st, 1946 – Oct 10th, 2022 was performed. Inclusion criteria was limited to English full-text original citations, with case reports, and cohorts with < 3 patients excluded. Our primary objective was to assess complete defect closure after attempted endoscopic treatment. Outcomes were stratified by modality (TTSC, OTSC, endoscopic suturing) and chronologically based on a previous well received systematic review. Result(s) A total of 2549 citations were identified in our electronic search, of which 34 were included representing 830 perforations. Overall, successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 763 cases (91.9%). When stratified by endoscopic closure techniques, range estimates for successful endoscopic closure was 71% – 100%, 57% - 100%, and 100% for TTSC, OTSC and endoscopic suturing respectively. When stratifying chronologically, an improvement in TTSC closure was identified. Conclusion(s) Endoscopic defect closure, including TTSC, OTSC and endoscopic suturing, are effective in the management of iatrogenic perforations with increasing TTSC performance over time. It remains the primary treatment strategy for iatrogenic perforation. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".