Table 2.
Characteristics of included studies comparing LS with OS for colonoscopic perforation.
| Study | Study period | Country | Number of patients | Sex of patients (M/F) | Aim of colonoscopy (diagnostic/therapeutic) | History of abdominopelvic surgery (yes/no) | Type of procedure | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LS | OS | LS | OS | LS | OS | LS | OS | ||||
| Hansen AJ[18] | 2007 | America | 7 | 4 | 3/4 | 1/3 | 6/1 | 1/3 | 7/0 | 2/2 | Primary repair, stapled repair, colostomy |
| Bleier JI[19] | 2008 | America | 11 | 7 | 2/9 | 3/4 | NA | NA | NA | NA | Primary repair |
| Rumstadt B[21] | 2008 | Germany | 10 | 3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Primary repair |
| Rotholtz NA[20] | 2010 | Argentina | 14 | 6 | 5/9 | 2/4 | 8/6 | 3/3 | NA | NA | Primary repair, colonic resection, Hartmann, colostomy |
| Coimbra C[22] | 2011 | Belgium | 16 | 23 | 9/7 | 11/12 | 11/5 | 17/6 | 3/13 | 7/16 | Primary repair, colostomy |
| Schlöricke E[23] | 2013 | Germany | 24 | 12 | 14/10 | 5/7 | NA | NA | 4/20 | 4/8 | Primary repair, colonic resection |
| Kim J[24] | 2014 | Korea | 17 | 8 | 8/9 | 4/4 | NA | NA | NA | NA | Primary repair, colonic resection, Hartmann |
| Zhong W[26] | 2016 | China | 13 | 8 | 7/6 | 5/3 | NA | NA | 0/13 | 0/8 | Primary repair, |
| Shin DK[25] | 2016 | Korea | 8 | 15 | 7/1 | 5/10 | 4/4 | 7/8 | 0/8 | 3/12 | Primary repair, colonic resection, colostomy |
| Lee JS[12] | 2020 | Korea | 59 | 40 | 35/24 | 22/18 | 31/28 | 22/18 | 11/48 | 8/32 | Primary repair, colonic resection, Hartmann, colostomy |
| Li L[13] | 2020 | China | 13 | 5 | 7/6 | 2/3 | 8/5 | 5/0 | NA | NA | Primary repair, colostomy |
LS = laparoscopic surgery, OS = open surgery.