BACKGROUND: Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-associated duodenal perforation remains controversial. Some recommend surgery, while others recommend conservative treatment. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients treated at our institution for ERCP-related duodenal perforations. Study variables included indication for ERCP, clinical presentation, diagnostic procedures, time to diagnosis and treatment, location of injury, management, length of stay in hospital and survival. RESULTS: Between January 2000 and October 2009, 12 232 ERCP procedures were performed at our centre, and perforation occured in 11 patients (0.08%; 5 men, 6 women, mean age 71 yr). Six of the perforations were discovered during ERCP; 5 required radiologic imaging for diagnosis. Three perforations were diagnosed incidentally by follow-up ERCP. In 1 patient, perforation occurred 3 years after the procedure owing to a dislocated stent. Four of 11 perforations were stent-related; in 2 patients ERCP was performed in a nonanatomic situation (Billroth II gastroenterostomy). Free peritoneal perforation occurred in 4 patients; 1 was successfully managed conservatively. Four patients (36%) were treated surgically and none died. Five patients were managed conservatively with a successful outcome, and 2 patients died after conservative treatment (18%). Operative treatment included hepaticojejunostomy and duodenostomy (1 patient), suture of the perforation with T-drain (1 patient) and suture only (2 patients). The mean length of stay in hospital for all patients was 20 days. CONCLUSION: Post-ERCP duodenal perforations are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Immediate surgical evaluation and close monitoring is needed. Management should be individually tailored based on clinical findings only.
BACKGROUND: Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-associated duodenal perforation remains controversial. Some recommend surgery, while others recommend conservative treatment. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients treated at our institution for ERCP-related duodenal perforations. Study variables included indication for ERCP, clinical presentation, diagnostic procedures, time to diagnosis and treatment, location of injury, management, length of stay in hospital and survival. RESULTS: Between January 2000 and October 2009, 12 232 ERCP procedures were performed at our centre, and perforation occured in 11 patients (0.08%; 5 men, 6 women, mean age 71 yr). Six of the perforations were discovered during ERCP; 5 required radiologic imaging for diagnosis. Three perforations were diagnosed incidentally by follow-up ERCP. In 1 patient, perforation occurred 3 years after the procedure owing to a dislocated stent. Four of 11 perforations were stent-related; in 2 patients ERCP was performed in a nonanatomic situation (Billroth II gastroenterostomy). Free peritoneal perforation occurred in 4 patients; 1 was successfully managed conservatively. Four patients (36%) were treated surgically and none died. Five patients were managed conservatively with a successful outcome, and 2 patients died after conservative treatment (18%). Operative treatment included hepaticojejunostomy and duodenostomy (1 patient), suture of the perforation with T-drain (1 patient) and suture only (2 patients). The mean length of stay in hospital for all patients was 20 days. CONCLUSION: Post-ERCP duodenal perforations are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Immediate surgical evaluation and close monitoring is needed. Management should be individually tailored based on clinical findings only.
Authors: P B Cotton; G Lehman; J Vennes; J E Geenen; R C Russell; W C Meyers; C Liguory; N Nickl Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1991 May-Jun Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: S Loperfido; G Angelini; G Benedetti; F Chilovi; F Costan; F De Berardinis; M De Bernardin; A Ederle; P Fina; A Fratton Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Grace S Rozycki; Lorraine Tremblay; David V Feliciano; Richard Joseph; Pierre DeDelva; Jeffrey P Salomone; Jeffrey M Nicholas; Raymond A Cava; Joseph D Ansley; Walter L Ingram Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M L Freeman; D B Nelson; S Sherman; G B Haber; M E Herman; P J Dorsher; J P Moore; M B Fennerty; M E Ryan; M J Shaw; J D Lande; A M Pheley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-09-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jo Vandervoort; Roy M Soetikno; Tony C K Tham; Richard C K Wong; Angelo P Ferrari; Henry Montes; Alfred D Roston; Adam Slivka; David R Lichtenstein; Frederick W Ruymann; Jacques Van Dam; Mike Hughes; David L Carr-Locke Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M Ezzedien Rabie; N H Mir; M S Al Skaini; I El Hakeem; A Hadad; H Ageely; A N Shaban; M Obaid; A M Hummadi Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Jason G Bill; Zachary Smith; Joseph Brancheck; Jeffrey Elsner; Paul Hobbs; Gabriel D Lang; Dayna S Early; Koushik Das; Thomas Hollander; Maria B Majella Doyle; Ryan C Fields; William G Hawkins; Steven M Strasberg; Chet Hammill; William C Chapman; Steven Edmundowicz; Daniel K Mullady; Vladimir M Kushnir Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.584