Pancreas‐sparing, ampulla‐preserving duodenectomy for major duodenal (D1–D2) perforations. BJS 2018; 105: 1487-1492.
Published: 19th July 2018
Authors: S. Di Saverio, E. Segalini, A. Birindelli, S. Todero, M. Podda, A. Rizzuto et al.
Ideal surgical treatment for acute duodenal injuries should offer a definitive treatment, with low morbidity and mortality. It should be simple and easily reproducible by acute care surgeons in an emergency. Duodenal injury, due to major perforated or bleeding peptic ulcers or iatrogenic/traumatic perforation, represents a surgical challenge, with high morbidity and mortality. The aim was to review definitive surgery with pancreas‐sparing, ampulla‐preserving duodenectomy for these patients.
Pancreas‐sparing, ampulla‐preserving D1–D2 duodenectomy was used for patients presenting with major duodenal injuries over a 5‐year interval. The ampulla was identified and preserved using a transcystic/transpapillary tube. The outcomes were recorded.
Ten patients were treated with this technique; seven had perforated or bleeding peptic ulcers, two had iatrogenic perforations and one blunt abdominal trauma. Their mean age was 78 (range 65–84) years. Four patients were haemodynamically unstable. The location of the duodenal injury was always D1 and/or D2, above or in close proximity to the ampulla of Vater. The surgical approach was open in nine patients and laparoscopic in one. The mean duration of surgery was 264 (range 170–377) min. All patients were transferred to the ICU after surgery (mean ICU stay 4·4 (range 1–11) days), and the overall mean hospital stay was 17·8 (range 10–32) days. Six patients developed major postoperative complications: cardiorespiratory failure in five and gastrointestinal complications in four. Surgical reoperation was needed in one patient for postoperative necrotizing and bleeding pancreatitis. Two patients died from their complications.
Pancreas‐sparing, ampulla‐preserving D1–D2 duodenectomy for emergency treatment of major duodenal perforations is feasible and associated with satisfactory outcomes.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: T. Mizuno, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, J. Yamaguchi, S. Onoe et al.
Systematic review of clinical prediction models for survival after surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer.
Authors: M. Strijker, J. W. Chen, T. H. Mungroop, N. B. Jamieson, C. H. van Eijck, E. W. Steyerberg et al.
Authors: R. Miller, J. C. R. Wormald, R. G. Wade, D. P. Collins
Time to calcitonin normalization after surgery for node‐negative and node‐positive medullary thyroid cancer.
Authors: A. Machens, K. Lorenz, H. Dralle
Notes: Sensitive as prognostic tool
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized trial of oral versus enteral feeding for patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 190-198.
Authors: J.‐M. Wu, T.‐C. Kuo, H.‐A. Chen, C.‐H. Wu, S.‐R. Lai, C.‐Y. Yang et al.
Clinical and experimental studies of intraperitoneal lipolysis and the development of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery.
Authors: Y. Uchida, T. Masui, K. Nakano, A. Yogo, A. Sato, K. Nagai et al.
Multicentre propensity score‐matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.
Authors: M. J. van der Poel, L. Barkhatov, D. Fuks, G. Berardi, F. Cipriani, A. Aljaiuossi et al.
Authors: T. M. Mackay, U. F. Wellner, L. B. van Rijssen, T. F. Stoop, O. R. Busch, B. Groot Koerkamp et al.
Contralateral surgery in patients scheduled for total thyroidectomy with initial loss or absence of signal during neural monitoring.
Authors: A. Sitges‐Serra, L. Gallego‐Otaegui, J. Fontané, L. Trillo, L. Lorente‐Poch, J. Sancho et al.
Authors: K. Shinohara, T. Ebata, Y. Shimoyama, M. Nakaguro, T. Mizuno, K. Matsuo et al.
Authors: L. M. Almond, F. Tirotta, H. Tattersall, J. Hodson, T. Cascella, M. Barisella et al.
Notes: Weak for liposarcoma