Surgical Treatment for Septic Complications in Patients with Duodenal Perforation Following Endoscopic Retrograde Transpapillary Interventions
Author:
Korobka V. L.1ORCID, Tolstopyatov S. V.2ORCID, Shapovalov A. M.2ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Rostov Regional Clinical Hospital; Rostov State Medical University 2. Rostov Regional Clinical Hospital
Abstract
Background The most severe clinical cases following transpapillary endoscopic interventions are duodenal perforation with damage to the common bile duct and pancreatic duct, entrance into the abdominal cavity and retroperitoneum the aggressive contents of intestine and the infections. They usually lead to higher mortality. Aim Evaluation of the optimal management for duodenal perforation in patients who have undergone transpapillary endoscopic interventions. Material and Methods A retrospective analysis of surgical treatment in thirty-two patients with duodenal perforation after transpapillary endoscopic interventions from the year 2007 to 2018 in one center was carried out. Nineteen cases (59.4%) were diagnosed less than 24 hours, 13 (40.6%) – more than 24 hours after injury. Twenty patients had the primary reconstruction of duodenum with various drainage options of injury area. In 19 cases there were a two-stage surgical procedure according the original method: 12 had a primary surgery, 7 were reoperated. Results After primary reconstruction of duodenum 11 patients (55.0%) had complications, seven (63.6%) – were re-operated, in four we have applied efferent treatments and symptomatic therapy. Three patients (15.8%) died. After two-stage surgery procedure 7 patients (36.8%) had surgical complications, five (26.3%) – were re-operated. Three patients (15.8%) – were died. Conclusion Primary duodenum reconstruction can be performed if the injury occurred less than 24 hours before surgery. Two-staged surgery is justified in cases with purulent inflammation in abdominum and reproperitoneal cavity because procedure allows reducing mortality from abdominal sepsis
Publisher
Scientific Research Institute - Ochapovsky Regional Clinical Hospital No 1
Reference19 articles.
1. Christensen, M., Matzen, P., Schulze, S. and Rosenberg, J. (2004). Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 60(5), pp.721-731. doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02169-8 2. Testoni, P., Mariani, A., Aabakken, L., Arvanitakis, M., Bories, E., Costamagna, G., Devière, J., Dinis-Ribeiro, M., Dumonceau, J., Giovannini, M., Gyokeres, T., Hafner, M., Halttunen, J., Hassan, C., Lopes, L., Papanikolaou, I., Tham, T., Tringali, A., van Hooft, J. and Williams, E. (2016). Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy, 48(07), pp.657-683. doi:10.1055/s-0042-108641 3. Enns, R., Eloubeidi, M., Mergener, K., Jowell, P., Branch, M., Pappas, T. and Baillie, J. (2002). ERCP-Related Perforations: Risk Factors and Management. Endoscopy, 34(4), pp.293-298. doi:10.1055/s-2002-23650 4. Lai, C. and Lau, W. (2008). Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforation. The Surgeon, 6(1), pp.45-48. doi:10.1016/s1479-666x(08)80094-7 5. Tavusbay, C. (2016). The Management of Perforation after Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Turkish Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 22(5), pp.441-448. doi:10.5505/tjtes.2016.42247
|
|