Management of Duodenal Perforation Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. When and Whom to Operate and What Factors Determine The Outcome? A Review Article
Context Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has evolved from a diagnostic tool to primarily therapeutic procedure. With this, the complexity of the procedure and risk of complication including duodenal perforation have increased. In this article, the recent literature is reviewed to identify the optimal management and factors influencing the clinical outcome. Method Recent literature in English language from the year 2000 onwards, containing major studies of 9 or more cases on duodenal perforation post ERCP were analyzed. Results Literature review revealed a total of 251 cases of duodenal perforation reported in 10 major reports presenting 9 or more cases each. The mean age of these patients was 58.5 years with nearly two third (62.9%) being female patients. The predominant location of the perforation was: duodenal wall (34.5%), perivaterian (31.3%), common bile duct (23.0%), and unknown in 7.9%.Early diagnosis within 24 hours was made in 78.5%, with 55.8% of these being diagnosed during or immediately after ERCP. CT scan was the most useful investigations in detecting perforations missed during ERCP (44.6%). Conservative management was employed in 62.2%, which was successful in 92.9% of these cases. Ten of these who failed conservative management required salvage surgery (6.4%) and one died of pneumothorax (0.6%). The predominant surgical intervention was closure of perforation (49.0%) with or without other procedures, retroperitoneal drainage (39.0%), duodenal exclusion (24.0%) and common bile duct exploration and T tube insertion (13.0%). The overall mortality was 8.0% which appears to be better than previously reported (16-18%). Among the 20 patients who died, six (30.0%) had salvage surgery, five (25.0%) had delay in diagnosis/intervention beyond 3 days and 3 (15.0%) required multiple operations. Conclusion While the patients with duodenal perforation invariably require surgical intervention, most of the patients with perivaterian injuries can be successfully managed conservatively. The most important factors for recent better outcome were early detection and prompt treatment. Delay in diagnosis and intervention, salvage surgery after failed conservative management, multiple operations, and older age group contributed significantly to the poor outcome.
Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenber J. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc.2004;60(5):721-31.
Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dorsher PJ et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(13):909-18.
Masci, Toti G, Mariani A, Curioni S, Lomazzi A, Dinelli M, Minoli G. Major early complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am j Gastroenterol. 2001;96(2):417-23.
Stapfer M, Selby RR, Stain SC, Katkhouda N, Parekh D, Jabbour N et al. Management of duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography and sphincterotomy. Am Surg.2000;232:191-8.
Howard TJ, Tan T, Lehman GA, Sherman S, Madura JA, Fogel E et al. Classification and management of perforations complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Surgery.1999;126(4):658-63.
Krishna RP, Singh RK, Behari A, Kumar A, Saxena R, Kapoor VK. Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography perforation managed by surgery or percutanaeous drainage. Surg Today.2011;41:660-6.
Lai CH, Lau WY. Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography related perforation. Review. Surgeon.2008;6(1):45-8.
Avgerinos DV, Liaguna OH, Lo AY, Voli J, Leitman IM. Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticogarphy related duodenal perforations. Surg Endosc.2009;23(4):833-38.
Mao Z, Zhu Q, Wu W, Wang M, Li J, Lu A et al. Duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde chlangiopancreaticography. Experience and management. J LaproendoscAdvSurg Tech.2008;18(5):691-5.
Morgan KA, Fontenot BB, Ruddy JM, Mickey S, Adams DB. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography gut perforations: when to wait! When to operate!. Am Surg.2009;75(6):477-83.
Wu HM, Dixon E, May GR, Sutherland FR. Management of perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticogarphy (ERCP): a population based review. HPB(Oxford).2006:8(5):393-9.
Assalia A, Suissa A, Ilivitzki A, Mahajna A, Yassin K, Hashmonai M, et al. Validity of clinical criteria in the management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography related duodenal perforations. Arch Surg.2007.142(11):1059-64.
Fatima J, BaronTH, Topazian MD, Houghton SG, Iqbal CW, Ott BJ et al. Pancreaticobiliary and duodenal perforations after periampullary endoscopic procedures. Diagnosis and management. Arch Surg.2007;142(5):448-55.
Knudson K, Raeburn CD, McIntyre RC Jr, Shah RJ, Chen YK, Brown WR et al. Management of duodenal and pancreaticobiliary perforations associated with periampullary endoscopic procedures. Am J Surg.2008;196(6):975-81.
Preetha M, Chung YF, Chan WH, Ong HS, Chow PK, Wong WK et al. Surgical management of endoscopic retrograde cholangio¬pancreaticography-related perforations. ANZJ Surg.2003; 73(12):1011-4.
Scarlett PY, Falk GL. The management of perforation of the duodenumfollowing endoscopic sphincterotomy. A proposal for selective therapy. ANZJ Surg.1994;64(12):843-6.
Genzlinger JL, McPhee MS, Fisher JK, Jacob KM, Helzberg JH. Significance of retroperitoneal air after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography with sphincterotomy. Am J Gastroenterol.1999;94(5):1267-7.
de Vries JH, Duijm LE, Dekker W, Guit GL, Ferwerda J, Scholten ET. CT before and after ERCP. Detection of pancreatic pseudotumor, asymptomatic retroperitoneal perforation and duodenal diverticulum. Gastrointest Endosc.1997;45(3):231-5.
Enns R, Eloubeidi MA, Mergener K, Jowell PS, Branch MS, Pappas TM et al. ERCP related perforations: risk factors and management. Endoscopy.2002;34(4):293-8.
Emmett DS, Mallat DB. Double balloon ERCP in patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y surgery. a case series. Gastrointest Endosc.2007;66(5):1038-41.
PaiRD, Carr-Locke DL, Thompson CC. Endoscopic evaluation of the defunctionalised stomach by using shapeLock technology. GastrointestEndosc. 2007;66:578-81.
Zissin R, Shapiro-Feinberg M, Oscadchy A, Pomeranz I, Leichtmann G, NovisB et al. Retroperitoneal perforation during endoscopic sphincterotomy: Imaging findings. Abdom Imaging.2000;25(3):279-82.
Cottan PB, Lehman G, Vennes J , Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC et al. Endoscopicsphincterotomy complications and their management . an attempt at consensus. Gastroenterol Endosc.1991;37:383-93.
Chung RS, Sivak MV, Ferguson DR. Surgical decision in the management of duodenal perforation complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Am J Surg.1993;165:700-3.
Kaneko T, Akamatsu T, Shimodaira K, Ueno T, Gotoh A, Mukawa K et al. Non surgical treatment of duodenal perforation by endoscopic repair using a clipping device. Gastrointest Endosc.1999;50:410-3.
Sarli L, Porrini C, Costi R, Regina G, Violi V, Ferro M, Roncoroni L. Operative treatment of periampullary retroperitoneal perforation complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Surgery.2007;142(1):26-32.
Baron TH, Gostout CJ, Herman L. Hemoclip repair of a sphincterotomy induced duodenal perforation. Gastrointest Endosc.2000;52(4):566-68.
Mutignani M, Iacopini F, Dokas S, Larghi a, Familiari P, TringoliA et al. Successful endoscopic closure of a lateral duodenal wall perforation at ERCP with fibrin glue. Gastrointest Endosc.2006;63(4):725-27.
Copyright (c) 2014 Norman Oneil Machado
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.As a member of Publisher International Linking Association, PILA, iMedPub Group’s JOP follows the Creative Commons Attribution License and Scholars Open Access publishing policies. Journal of the Pancreas is the Council Contributor Member of Council of Science Editors (CSE) and following the CSE slogan Education, Ethics, and Evidence for Editors.