Naoki Asayama1, Shinji Nagata2, Mikihiro Kano3, Kenjiro Shigita2, Taiki Aoyama2, Akira Fukumoto2, Shinichi Mukai2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan. asayama0502@hiroshima-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan. 3. Department of Surgery, Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastroduodenal perforation is potentially life threatening and requires early diagnosis and treatment. Urgent endoscopy facilitates detecting bleeding sites and achieving hemostasis. However, there is no consensus on urgent endoscopy for gastroduodenal perforation in Japan. METHODS: We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of urgent endoscopy for gastroduodenal perforation. We compared clinical characteristics between 140 patients who underwent urgent endoscopy (urgent endoscopy group) and 16 patients did not (no urgent endoscopy group) at Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital between December 2005 and December 2018. RESULTS: Endoscopic diagnosis was possible in all urgent endoscopy group. In contrast, correct diagnosis of the perforation site was made on CT in 99 cases (63%). Furthermore, the proportion of cases with correct diagnosis of the perforation site by CT findings differed significantly between the urgent endoscopy group and the no urgent endoscopy group (66% vs. 38%, p < 0.05). No complications of urgent endoscopy were observed. Primary perforation site was gastric in 42 cases and duodenal in 114. In the 42 gastric perforation cases, 12 gastric perforation cases (29%) were managed conservatively, successfully in 9 (75%); 2 cases (17%) required delayed emergency surgery for worsening peritonitis. In the 114 duodenal perforation cases (duodenal ulcer in all cases), 52 cases (46%) were managed conservatively, successfully in 48 (92%); 3 cases (6%) required delayed emergency surgery for worsening peritonitis. A significantly higher proportion of gastric perforation cases than duodenal perforation cases required surgical treatment (76% vs. 57%, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed localized abdominal pain (no peritonism) (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.75; p < 0.01) and perforation diameter ≤ 5 mm (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.36; p < 0.01) as significant independent clinical factors for successful conservative management of duodenal ulcer perforation. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent endoscopy in gastroduodenal perforation enabled primary diagnosis and perforation site identification, and facilitated deciding the management strategy.
BACKGROUND: Gastroduodenal perforation is potentially life threatening and requires early diagnosis and treatment. Urgent endoscopy facilitates detecting bleeding sites and achieving hemostasis. However, there is no consensus on urgent endoscopy for gastroduodenal perforation in Japan. METHODS: We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of urgent endoscopy for gastroduodenal perforation. We compared clinical characteristics between 140 patients who underwent urgent endoscopy (urgent endoscopy group) and 16 patients did not (no urgent endoscopy group) at Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital between December 2005 and December 2018. RESULTS: Endoscopic diagnosis was possible in all urgent endoscopy group. In contrast, correct diagnosis of the perforation site was made on CT in 99 cases (63%). Furthermore, the proportion of cases with correct diagnosis of the perforation site by CT findings differed significantly between the urgent endoscopy group and the no urgent endoscopy group (66% vs. 38%, p < 0.05). No complications of urgent endoscopy were observed. Primary perforation site was gastric in 42 cases and duodenal in 114. In the 42 gastric perforation cases, 12 gastric perforation cases (29%) were managed conservatively, successfully in 9 (75%); 2 cases (17%) required delayed emergency surgery for worsening peritonitis. In the 114 duodenal perforation cases (duodenal ulcer in all cases), 52 cases (46%) were managed conservatively, successfully in 48 (92%); 3 cases (6%) required delayed emergency surgery for worsening peritonitis. A significantly higher proportion of gastric perforation cases than duodenal perforation cases required surgical treatment (76% vs. 57%, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed localized abdominal pain (no peritonism) (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.75; p < 0.01) and perforation diameter ≤ 5 mm (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.36; p < 0.01) as significant independent clinical factors for successful conservative management of duodenal ulcer perforation. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent endoscopy in gastroduodenal perforation enabled primary diagnosis and perforation site identification, and facilitated deciding the management strategy.