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.
