Endoscopic duodenal perforation: surgical strategies in a regional centre

  • Richard C Turner1Email author,

    Affiliated with

    • Christina M Steffen2 and

      Affiliated with

      • Peter Boyd2

        Affiliated with

        World Journal of Emergency Surgery20149:11

        DOI: 10.1186/1749-7922-9-11

        Received: 30 June 2013

        Accepted: 19 January 2014

        Published: 24 January 2014

        Abstract

        Background

        Duodenal perforation is an uncommon complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) and a rare complication of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Most are minor perforations that settle with conservative management. A few perforations however result in life-threatening retroperitoneal necrosis and require surgical intervention. There is a relative paucity of references specifically describing the surgical interventions required for this eventuality.

        Methods

        Five cases of iatrogenic duodenal perforation were ascertained between 2002 and 2007 at Cairns Base Hospital. Clinical features were analyzed and compared, with reference to a review of ERCP at that institution for the years 2005/2006.

        Results

        One patient recovered with conservative management. Of the other four, one died after initial laparotomy. The other three survived, undergoing multiple procedures and long inpatient stays.

        Conclusions

        Iatrogenic duodenal perforation with retroperitoneal necrosis is an uncommon complication of endoscopy, but when it does occur it is potentially life-threatening. Early recognition may lead to a better outcome through earlier intervention, although a protracted course with multiple procedures should be anticipated. A number of surgical techniques may need to be employed according to the individual circumstances of the case.

        Keywords

        Duodenum Perforation Endoscopy Surgery Necrosis

        Background

        Duodenal perforation is an uncommon complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and a very rare complication of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Most series report a majority of non-life-threatening perforations which settle with conservative management [1, 2]. There are few references specifically describing the surgical interventions required for the minority of iatrogenic duodenal perforations where surgery is indicated.

        Five cases of iatrogenic duodenal perforation occurring between 2002 and 2007 at Cairns Base Hospital are presented for comparison, with reference to a review of ERCP at Cairns Base Hospital for the years 2005/2006. Further, a focused review of the literature was undertaken to inform discussion of the surgical management of such cases.

        Methods

        Cairns Base Hospital is a secondary referral hospital in Far North Queensland, Australia. It serves a catchment population of approximately 250 000, 15% of which identify as Indigenous Australian. Hospital surgical audit and endoscopy records for the period 2002–2008 were searched for cases of duodenal perforation following endoscopy or ERCP. Age, sex, indication for endoscopy/ERCP, timing or delay to diagnosis and definitive management, type of perforation, surgical management, complications, length of stay, and late morbidity were recorded for each case.

        An audit of ERCP at Cairns Base Hospital for the two year period 2005/2006 was utilized to determine incidence of complications of ERCP and is presented in Tables 1 and 2.
        Table 1

        Complications of ERCP procedures for 2005–6 at Cairns Base Hospital (N = 211)

        Complication

        N (%)

        Pancreatitis

        9 (4.3%)

        Cholangitis

        7 (3.3%)

        Bleeding

        4 (1.9%)

        Perforation

        2 (0.95%)

        Death

        3 (1.4%)

        Other: Stroke

        1 (0.5%)

        Total (with complications)

        22 (12.3%)

        Adapted from Cotton et al. 1991 [3].

        Table 2

        Indications for ERCP 2005–06, Cairns Base Hospital (N = 202)

        Indication

        N (%)

        CBD stone (s)

        115 (57%)

        Cholangitis

        6 (3%)

        Malignant jaundice

        29 (14%)

        Stent change or unblocking

        33 (16%)

        Abdominal pain, abnormal LFTs, dilated duct

        5 (2.5%)

        Chronic pancreatitis

        10 (10%)

        Abnormal CT

        1 (0.5%)

        Bile leak

        3 (1.5%)

        For the focused literature review, a PubMed search was undertaken using the terms “duodenal perforation”, “endoscopic” and “retroperitoneal necrosis”. Case-based articles cited by reviews were secondarily sourced. Articles with English language abstracts were considered, and excluded if endoscopy was not the cause of the perforation (rather a treatment) or if specific operative details were not reported. Similarly, only cases that underwent some form of surgical management were included.

        Approval to access and analyze de-identified patient records for this study was given by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Cairns and Hinterland Health Service District.

        Results

        Five patients sustaining iatrogenic duodenal perforation were identified. The clinical data pertaining to these are presented in Table 3. All four of the ERCP cases had an associated pre-cut sphincterotomy. No significant bleeding was noted, and no additional procedures such as lithotripsy or stenting were performed. In two cases, there was no specific evidence of choledocholithiasis, with the ERCP being intended solely for diagnostic purposes. Figure 1 shows a representative CT image from Case 2 prior to surgical intervention. Figure 2 illustrates the necrotic retroperitoneal material debrided via a right flank incision in Case 1.
        Table 3

        Characteristics of endoscopically induced duodenal injuries, Cairns Base Hospital, 2002–2008

        Case (year)

        1 (2002)

        2 (2004)

        3 (2005)

        4 (2006)

        5 (2007)

        Age/Sex

        51 male

        69 male

        42 female

        61 female

        72 male

        Indication for ERCP/endoscopy

        Post-cholecystectomy pain

        Choledocholithiasis

        Post- cholecystectomy pancreatitis

        Choledocholithiasis

        Post-cholecystectomy pain

        Post-procedure symptoms, signs

        Severe abdominal pain, tachycardia

        Severe abdominal pain

        Mild abdominal pain

        Abdominal pain

        Abdominal pain

        Type of perforation

        Not identified

        Not identified (Duodenal diverticulum)

        Type 2 (see Results)

        Not identified

        Type 1 (see Results) (Duodenal diverticulum)

        Delay to Diagnosis/Intervention

        48 hours then 5 weeks

        5 days

        Immediate diagnosis

        Immediate diagnosis, surgery within 24 hours

        Immediate diagnosis, surgery at 6 hours

        Indications for surgery

        a) Duodenal perforation

        a) Duodenal perforation

        Nil

        a) Duodenal perforation

        a) Large defect duodenum,

        a) at diagnosis

        b) Infected retroperitoneal necrosis/collections

        b) Extensive retroperitoneal necrosis/collections Persistent duodenal leak

          

        b) Extensive retroperitoneal necrosis/collections

        b) subsequent

        Duodenal stenosis, Necrosis of posterior caecal wall

          

        b) Extensive retroperitoneal necrosis

        a) Laparotomy, repair duodenum

        Management

        a) Laparotomy

        a) Laparotomy

        Conservative

        a) Laparotomy, retroperitoneal washout, pyloric, exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, jejunal feeding tube

        b) Open drainage/evacuation right retroperitoneal space x 2

        a) on diagnosis

        b) Attempted percutaneous drainage

        b) 7 x debridement of necrosis

        (no surgery)

         

        Drainage right scrotum

        b) subsequent

        2 x Open drainage procedure right retroperitoneal space

        Open drainage right inguinoscrotal tract

           
         

        Right hemicolectomy, end ileostomy and mucous fistula

        Pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy

           

        Complications of treatment

        Deep vein thrombosis

        Gastroparesis, UTI, CVL infection, wound infection, left brachial plexopathy

        Nil

        Necrotising fasciitis right thigh/abdomen

        Right inguinal haematoma

        Incisional hernia

        Seroma

        Length of stay (days)

        99

        132

        4

        6

        63

        Case fatality

        No

        No

        No

        Yes

        No

        Residual disability

        Residual presacral collection and sinus to right iliac fossa

        Retained CBD stones removed 2007

        Nil

        Died

        Nil

        http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1749-7922-9-11/MediaObjects/13017_2013_345_Fig1_HTML.jpg
        Figure 1

        CT image showing extensive retroperitoneal necrosis prior to surgical intervention (Case 2).

        http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1749-7922-9-11/MediaObjects/13017_2013_345_Fig2_HTML.jpg
        Figure 2

        Necrotic retroperitoneal tissue debrided via right flank incision (Case 1).

        In cases 1, 2 and 4, the actual duodenal perforation could not be identified at operation. This may have been due to a smaller size of the perforation and/or delay to surgery resulting in difficulty identifying the perforation. Ongoing leakage in Case 2 necessitated subsequent pyloric exclusion and gastrojejunostomy. Case 5, where endoscopy alone was performed, is likely to have perforated through a duodenal diverticulum, which is a known risk factor for perforation both in endoscopy and ERCP [46]. This large perforation was obvious at the time and early operation enabled definitive repair. As integrity of the repair was demonstrated radiologically, the subsequent delayed extensive retroperitoneal necrosis presumably arose from the leakage that occurred in the few hours between injury and laparotomy for repair.

        Timing of intervention was assisted by serial computerized tomography examination. In the four cases treated surgically, definitive intervention consisted of open surgical drainage with or without subsequent CT-guided percutaneous drainage of amenable collections. While open surgical drainage was immediately effective in all cases, percutaneous drainage as an initial intervention was not effective in Case 1, attributable to the large volumes of semi-solid necrotic material in the retroperitoneum of this patient. This is consistent with experience in pancreatic necrosectomy [7, 8]. In contrast, percutaneous drainage was an effective modality for the smaller, less accessible but more fluid presacral collection in Case 5.

        Retroperitoneal necrosis was progressive and in most cases multiple operations were required due to ongoing symptoms. An oblique right flank to right iliac fossa incision was performed in Cases 1 and 5 giving good access to the upper and lower right retroperitoneal space and to the presacral space. A feature of the three cases in males was involvement of the right inguinoscrotal tract, with Cases 2 and 5 requiring separate drainage of symptomatic inguinoscrotal collections. None had pre-existing hernias.

        One patient (Case 4) died indirectly as a result of the perforation, from sepsis associated with vascular access. This patient had significant co-morbidities, being steroid-dependent for pulmonary interstitial fibrosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Of the four survivors, one recovered quickly with conservative management alone, but the other three endured long hospital stays, underwent multiple surgical and other procedures, and developed short-term and long-term complications as a result of the original perforation and its treatment.

        Discussion

        All cases in this series were managed by General Surgeons at a regional hospital, serving a population of 250 000 and geographically remote from larger facilities. The endoscopic procedures were performed by a Gastroenterologist and a General Surgeon, both of whom were formally trained and accredited in these skills. As upper endoscopy and now ERCP are readily available in larger regional centres, an awareness of this serious but fortunately rare complication and its clinical course is useful for General Surgeons faced with its management. Certainly Case 5, undertaken with the benefit of specific experience gained in the management of Case 1, does seem to have had a better quality outcome, with shorter length of stay, fewer procedures, and fewer complications.

        While duodenal perforation at endoscopy alone is extremely rare, the rate during ERCP is significantly higher, estimated to be between 0.4 and 1% [9]. The rate of 0.95% in the audited series from Cairns Base Hospital is within these limits (Table 1). The indications for ERCP at our institution are shown in Table 2. It should be noted that two patients in the series had the uncommon indication of post-cholecystectomy pain. During the time period of this series, no other imaging modalities for the common bile duct were readily available. Despite the excellent standards set for training and quality assurance, ERCP, particularly when associated with sphincterotomy, still incurs a definite risk of complication, and its indications should be primarily interventional [10]. The emerging availability in regional centres of less invasive diagnostic modalities such as MRCP and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) should reduce exposure to the risk of duodenal perforation in this group, [11, 12] as has indeed been the case at our institution since 2007. Where these are not available, consideration should be given to transferring patients to centres where they are, particularly when there is no therapeutic intent at the outset.

        Four types of duodenal perforation have been described – Type 1: lateral duodenal wall, Type 2: peri-Vaterian duodenum, Type 3: bile duct, and Type 4: tiny retroperitoneal perforations caused by the use of compressed air during endoscopy. Most perforations are Type 2, due to concomitant endoscopic sphincterotomy, and may be suitable for a trial of conservative management [1315]. In our series, Case 3 was documented as a Type 2 perforation. Case 5 was documented as a Type 1 perforation, and Cases 1, 2, 4 were most likely this, based on the ensuing clinical course. Type 1 perforations have the most serious consequences and typically require complex and invasive treatment. They are mostly caused by the endoscope itself and may result in considerable intra- or extraperitoneal spillage of duodenal fluid (a mixture of gastric juice, bile and pancreatic juice), the latter causing rapid, extensive, and ongoing necrosis of the right retroperitoneum. The patient becomes intensely catabolic with fevers, raised inflammatory markers, leucocytosis, and nutritional depletion. Without surgical intervention death is likely from a combination of massive auto-digestion, nutritional depletion and sepsis. Delay in diagnosis increases the likelihood of a fatal outcome [16, 17].

        Various management algorithms for duodenal injuries have been proposed, largely focusing on early diagnosis and the decision for surgical management [1821]. Indications for surgery have been well described. If a Type 1 injury is noted at endoscopy or on subsequent imaging (eg. extravasation of contrast), immediate operative intervention is generally mandated. Failure of conservative management due to signs of progressive systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is a relative indication for operation. Guidelines for specific operative strategies in the face of ERCP-related duodenal injury and retroperitoneal necrosis have been proposed, but are often based on evidence derived from individual case reports or case series, or from experience in the trauma setting [22, 23]. Due to its uncommon nature, prospective comparative studies to determine the optimal procedure for endoscopically induced duodenal perforation have yet to be published [24].

        Published case series and reports regarding possible surgical management options for endoscopically induced Type 1 and 2 duodenal injuries are summarized in Table 4[13, 18, 19, 21, 2534]. In general, operative procedures are tailored to conditions encountered at the time of laparotomy, as well as to any underlying pathology that preceded or was the indication for the endoscopic procedure. Primary repair of a breach in the duodenal wall may be possible where the injury is diagnosed early and there is limited contamination of surrounding tissues. Kocherization is usually needed to facilitate this, along with debridement of any devitalized tissue. Additional operative variations worthy of consideration include repair in one or two layers, transverse or longitudinal closure, and augmentation with a jejunal serosal [35] or omental patch. For patients deemed to be at high risk for leak or fistula formation, a number of additional protective measures have been proposed [24, 36]. Tube decompression involves placement of a trans-mural trans-parietal duodenostomy or jejunostomy tube [37]. There are concerns that this engenders additional trauma to the gastrointestinal tract and may not provide adequate decompression. Duodenal diverticulation is a complex procedure that involves duodenal repair, distal Billroth II gastrectomy, placement of a decompressive duodenostomy tube, and peri-duodenal drainage [38]. This is obviously time-consuming and is often inappropriate for haemodynamically unstable patients. A less onerous procedure is pyloric exclusion, which entails primary duodenal repair, pyloric suture or stapling via greater curvature gastrotomy, and gastrojejunostomy using the gastrotomy incision [39]. In certain circumstances, it may be suitable to perform a duodenojejunostomy, preferably with Roux-en-Y reconstruction [40]. Such a maneuver would obviously be predicated on a stable patient and a duodenum wall that is amenable to sutures. It is clear that the General Surgeon must have a variety of techniques in his/her repertoire in order to adapt to the situation at hand.
        Table 4

        Reports in the literature of Type 1 and 2 duodenal injuries caused by endoscopic procedures

        Case/series

        N =

        Range of management strategies for:

        Average days in hospital

        Case fatality (%)

        Duodenal injury

        Retroperitoneal necrosis

        Underlying pathology

        Stapfer et al. 2000 [13]

        8

        Pyloric exclusion and gastro-jejunostomy

        Drain placement

        Cholecystectomy

        62.9

        2 (25%)

        Tube duodenostomy

         

        CBD exploration

        Duodeno-antrectomy

         

        Hepatico-jejunostomy

        Preetha et al. 2003 [25]

        13

        Primary repair

        Not described

        Cholecystectomy

        23.8

        3 (23.1%)

        Pyloric exclusion and gastro-jejunostomy

         

        CBD exploration

        T-tube

         

        Hepatico-jejunostomy

        Bowel decompression

            

        Kalyani et al. 2005 [26]

        1

        Jejunal serosal patch

        Not required

        Nil required

        >15

        0 (0%)

        Melita et al. 2005 [27]

        1

        Nil required

        CT-guided abscess drainage

        Nil required

        Not specified

        0 (0%)

        Wu et al. 2006 [18]

        10

        Primary repair

        Drain placement

        Cholecystectomy

        31.4

        4 (40%)

        Omental patch

        Open abscess drainage

        CBD exploration

        Duodenostomy

        Percutaneous abscess drainage

        Cholecysto-jejunostomy

        Fatima et al. 2007 [28]

        22

        Primary repair

        Drain placement

        Choledocho-jejunostomy

        16

        3 (13.6%)

        Omental patch

          

        Knudson et al. 2008 [29]

        12

        Primary repair

        Drain placement

        Hepatico-jejunostomy

        4.5

        0 (0%)

        T-tube

        Open abscess drainage

         

        Omental patch

          

        Duodenostomy tube

          

        Gastrostomy

          

        Jejunostomy tube

          

        Pyloric exclusion

          

        Mao et al. 2008 [30]

        3

        Nil required

        Drain placement

        Cholecystectomy

        50

        0 (0%)

        CBD exploration

        T-tube

        Angiò et al. 2009 [31]

        1

        Kocherization and primary repair

        Not described

        CBD exploration

        23

        0 (0%)

        Avgerinos et al. 2009 [19]

        15

        Primary repair

        Not described

        Choledocho-duodenostomy

        42

        3 (20%)

        Omental patch

         

        Pyloric exclusion

         

        Gastro-enterostomy

         

        Morgan et al. 2009 [32]

        10

        Primary repair gastrojejunostomy

        Drain placement

         

        Not available

        1 (10%)

        Dubecz et al. 2012 [33]

        4

        Primary repair

        Not described

        Hepatico-jejunostomy

        23

        0 (0%)

        T-tube

          

        Ercan et al. 2012 [21]

        13

        Primary repair

        Percutaneous abscess drainage

        Cholecystectomy

        10.2

        6 (46.2%)

        Pyloric exclusion

        Open abscess drainage

        CBD exploration

        Gastro-enterostomy

         

        T-tube

        Caliskan et al. 2013 [34]

        9

        Primary repair

        Not described

        CBD exploration

        22.6

        4 (44.4%)

        Duodenostomy

         

        T-tube

        Pyloric exclusion, gastro-jejunostomy

         

        Pancreatico-duodenectomy

        The other important issue to contend with in duodenal injuries is the management of retroperitoneal necrosis or sepsis. In most cases where laparotomy is performed, some degree of debridement and placement of drains is undertaken. This may be all that can be done if primary duodenal repair is not feasible, or the perforation cannot be localized amid the devitalized tissue. As illustrated by our own case series, repeated drainage procedures are often necessary if signs of recurrent sepsis develop. As has been noted by other authors, [41] males are also at risk of developing sepsis of the inguinoscrotal tract. Percutaneous drainage of any recurrent collections may be attempted using radiological guidance, unless the semi-solid nature of the debris necessitates an open approach. The technique of video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement, [42] as validated for infected necrotizing pancreatitis, may be of use, but there have been no reports of its application in this context.

        Conclusion

        Retroperitoneal necrosis due to duodenal perforation is a rare but serious complication of ERCP. Early recognition based on risk factors and clinical suspicion may lead to a better outcome, although a protracted course with multiple and various types of procedures should be anticipated. Urgent interventions typically involve debridement and drainage, duodenal repair where feasible, and if indicated, duodenal diversion or other protective procedures. Familiarity with a number of possible surgical strategies is desirable due to the need to adapt to individual circumstances. Surgical management plans should also take into account any underlying pathology that was the initial indication for the endoscopic procedure, although definitive procedures may not be feasible at first operation. The use of ERCP for purely diagnostic purposes should only be considered where less invasive imaging modalities are not possible.

        Abbreviations

        CBD: 

        Common bile duct

        CVL: 

        Central venous line

        CT: 

        Computerized tomography

        ERCP: 

        Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

        EUS: 

        Endoscopic ultrasound

        LFTs: 

        Liver function tests

        MRCP: 

        Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

        SIRS: 

        Systemic inflammatory response syndrome

        UTI: 

        Urinary tract infection.

        Declarations

        Authors’ Affiliations

        (1)
        Department of Surgery, Hobart Clinical School, University of Tasmania
        (2)
        Department of Surgery, Cairns Base Hospital, Cairns & Hinterland Health Service District

        References

        1. Enns R, Eloubeidi MA, Mergener K, Jowell PS, Branch MS, Pappas TM, Baillie J: ERCP-related perforations: risk factors and management. Endoscopy 2002,34(4):293–298.PubMedView Article
        2. Kayhan B, Akdoğan M, Sahin B: ERCP subsequent to retroperitoneal perforation caused by endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2004,60(5):833–835.PubMedView Article
        3. Cotton PBLG, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC, Liguory C, Nickl N: Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991,37(3):383–393.PubMedView Article
        4. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J: Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004,60(5):721–731.PubMedView Article
        5. Miller RE, Bossart PW, Tiszenkel HI: Surgical management of complications of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and esophageal dilation including laser therapy. Am Surg 1987,53(11):667–671.PubMed
        6. Ames JT, Federle MP, Pealer KM: Perforated duodenal diverticulum: clinical and imaging findings in eight patients. Abdom Imaging 2009,34(2):135–139.PubMedView Article
        7. Slavin JGP, Sutton R, Hartley M, Rowlands P, Garvey C, Hughes M, Neoptolemos J: Management of necrotizing pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2001,7(4):476–481.PubMed
        8. Freeny PC, Hauptmann E, Althaus SJ, Traverso LW, Sinanan M: Percutaneous CT-guided catheter drainage of infected acute necrotizing pancreatitis: techniques and results. Am J Roentgenol 1998,170(4):969–975.View Article
        9. Habr-Gama A, Waye JD: Complications and hazards of gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Surg 1989,13(2):193–201.PubMedView Article
        10. Cotton PB: Is your sphincterotomy really safe–and necessary? Gastrointest Endosc 1996,44(6):752–755.PubMedView Article
        11. Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TC, Wong RC, Ferrari APJ, Montes H, Roston AD, Slivka A, Lichtenstein DR, Ruymann FW, et al.: Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002,56(5):652–656.PubMedView Article
        12. Halme L, Doepel M, von Numers H, Edgren J, Ahonen J: Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1999,88(2):127–131.PubMed
        13. Stapfer M, Selby RR, Stain SC, Katkhouda N, Parekh D, Jabbour N, Garry D: Management of duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. Ann Surg 2000,232(2):191–198.PubMedView Article
        14. Suissa A, Yassin K, Lavy A, Lachter J, Chermech I, Karban A, Tamir A, Eliakim R: Outcome and early complications of ERCP: a prospective single center study. Hepatogastroenterology 2005,52(62):352–355.PubMed
        15. Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P, Hamlyn A, Logan RF, Martin D, Riley SA, Veitch P, Wilkinson ML, Williamson PR, et al.: Risk factors for complication following ERCP; results of a large-scale, prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2007,39(9):793–801.PubMedView Article
        16. Bharathi R, Rao P, Ghosh K: Iatrogenic duodenal perforations caused by endoscopic biliary stenting and stent migration: an update. Endoscopy 2006,38(12):1271–1274.View Article
        17. Doerr RJ, Kulaylat MN, Booth FV, Corasanti J: Barotrauma complicating duodenal perforation during ERCP. Surg Endosc 1996,10(3):349–351.PubMedView Article
        18. Wu HM, Dixon E, May GR, Sutherland FR: Management of perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a population-based review. HPB (Oxford) 2006,8(5):393–399.View Article
        19. Avgerinos DV, Llaguna OH, Lo AY, Voli J, Leitman IM: Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: related duodenal perforations. Surg Endosc 2009,23(4):833–838.PubMedView Article
        20. Machado NO: Management of duodenal perforation post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. When and whom to operate and what factors determine the outcome? A review article. JOP 2012,13(1):18–25.PubMed
        21. Ercan M, Bostanci EB, Dalgic T, Karaman K, Ozogul YB, Ozer I, Ulas M, Parlak E, Akoglu M: Surgical outcome of patients with perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012,22(4):371–377.PubMedView Article
        22. Carrillo EH, Richardson JD, Miller FB: Evolution in the management of duodenal injuries. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 1996,40(6):1037–1046.View Article
        23. Degiannis E, Boffard K: Duodenal injuries. Br J Surg 2000,87(11):1473–1479.PubMedView Article
        24. Lai CH, Lau WY: Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforation. Surgeon 2008,6(1):45–48.PubMedView Article
        25. Preetha M, Chung YF, Chan WH, Ong HS, Chow PK, Wong WK, Ooi LL, Soo KC: Surgical management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforations. ANZ J Surg 2003,73(12):1011–1014.PubMedView Article
        26. Kalyani A, Teoh CM, Sukumar N: Jeiunal patch repair of a duodenal perforation. Med J Malaysia 2005,60(2):237–238.PubMed
        27. Melita G, Currò G, Iapichino G, Princiotta S, Cucinotta E: Duodenal perforation secondary to biliary stent dislocation: a case report and review of the literature. Chir Ital 2005,57(3):385–388.PubMed
        28. Fatima J, Baron TH, Topazian MD, Houghton SG, Iqbal CW, Ott BJ, Farley DR, Farnell MB, Sarr MG: Pancreaticobiliary and duodenal perforations after periampullary endoscopic procedures: diagnosis and management. Arch Surg 2007,142(5):448–454.PubMedView Article
        29. Knudson K, Raeburn CD, McIntyre RCJ, Shah RJ, Chen YK, Brown WR, Stiegmann G: Management of duodenal and pancreaticobiliary perforations associated with periampullary endoscopic procedures. Am J Surg 2008,196(6):975–982.PubMedView Article
        30. Mao Z, Zhu Q, Wu W, Wang M, Li J, Lu A, Sun Y, Zheng M: Duodenal perforations after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: experience and management. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2008,18(5):691–695.PubMedView Article
        31. Angiò LG, Sfuncia G, Viggiani P, Faro G, Bonsignore A, Licursi M, Soliera M, Galati M, Putortì A: Management of perforations as adverse events of ERCP plus ES. Personal experience. G Chir 2009,30(11–12):520–530.PubMed
        32. Morgan KA, Fontenot BB, Ruddy JM, Mickey S, Adams DB: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography gut perforations: when to wait! When to operate! Am Surg 2009,75(6):477–483.PubMed
        33. Dubecz A, Ottmann J, Schweigert M, Stadlhuber RJ, Feith M, Wiessner V, Muschweck H, Stein HJ: Management of ERCP-related small bowel perforations: the pivotal role of physical investigation. Can J Surg 2012,55(2):99–104.PubMed CentralPubMed
        34. Caliskan K, Parlakgumus A, Ezer A, Colakoglu T, Törer N, Yildirim S: Surgical management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related injuries. Hepatogastroenterology 2013,60(121):76–78.PubMed
        35. McInnes WD, Aust JB, Cruz AB, Root HD: Traumatic injuries of the duodenum: a comparison of primary closure and the jejunal patch. J Trauma 1975, 15:847–853.View Article
        36. Jansen M, Du Toit DF, Warren BL: Duodenal injuries: surgical management adapted to circumstances. Injury 2002,33(7):611–615.PubMedView Article
        37. Stone HH, Fabian TC: Management of duodenal wounds. J Trauma 1979, 19:334–339.PubMedView Article
        38. Berne CJ, Donovan AJ, White EJ, Yellin AE: Duodenal divericulization for duodenal and pancreatic injury. Am J Surg 1974, 127:503–507.PubMedView Article
        39. Vaughan GD, Frazier OH, Graham DY, Mattox KL, Petmechy FF, Jordan GL: The use of pyloric exclusion in the management of severe duodenal injuries. Am J Surg 1977, 134:785–790.PubMedView Article
        40. Cukingnan RA, Culliford AT, Worth MH: Surgical correction of a lateral duodenal fistula with the Roux-Y technique. J Trauma 1975, 15:519–523.PubMedView Article
        41. Klipfel AA, Schein M: Retroperitoneal perforation of the duodenum and necrotizing extension to the scrotum. Surgery 2003,133(3):337–339.PubMedView Article
        42. Horvath K, Freeny P, Escallon J, Heagerty P, Comstock B, Glickerman DJ, Bulger E, Sinanan M, Langdale L, Kolokythas O, et al.: Safety and efficacy of video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement for infected pancreatic collections: a multicenter, prospective, single-arm phase 2 study. Arch Surg 2010,145(9):817–825.PubMedView Article

        Copyright

        © Turner et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

        This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

        Advertisement