Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2008
Diagnosis and management of the symptomatic duodenal diverticulum: a case series and a short review of the literature.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schnueriger Beat, Vorburger Stephan A, Banz Vanessa M, Schoepfer Alain M, Candinas Daniel
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The incidence of duodenal diverticula (DD) found at autopsy may be as high as 22%. Perforation is the least frequent but also the most serious complication. This case series gives an overview of the management of this rare entity.
METHODS: This study is a case series of eight patients treated for symptomatic DD.
RESULTS: Two patients had a perforated DD. One perforation was in segments III-IV, which to our knowledge is the first published case; the other perforation was in segment II. A segmental duodenectomy was performed in the first patient and a pylorus-preserving duodeno-pancreatectomy (pp-Whipple) in the second. A third patient with chronic complaints and recurring episodes of fever required an excision of the DD. In a fourth patient with biliary and pancreatic obstruction, a pp-Whipple was carried out, and a DD was discovered as the underlying cause. Four patients (one small perforation, one hemorrhage, and two recurrent cholangitis/pancreatitis caused by a DD) were treated conservatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic DD and, in particular, perforations are rare, encompass diagnostic challenges, and may require technically demanding surgical or endoscopic interventions. The diagnostic value of forward-looking gastroduodenoscopy in this setting seems limited. If duodenoscopy is performed at all, the use of a side-viewing endoscope is mandatory.
METHODS: This study is a case series of eight patients treated for symptomatic DD.
RESULTS: Two patients had a perforated DD. One perforation was in segments III-IV, which to our knowledge is the first published case; the other perforation was in segment II. A segmental duodenectomy was performed in the first patient and a pylorus-preserving duodeno-pancreatectomy (pp-Whipple) in the second. A third patient with chronic complaints and recurring episodes of fever required an excision of the DD. In a fourth patient with biliary and pancreatic obstruction, a pp-Whipple was carried out, and a DD was discovered as the underlying cause. Four patients (one small perforation, one hemorrhage, and two recurrent cholangitis/pancreatitis caused by a DD) were treated conservatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic DD and, in particular, perforations are rare, encompass diagnostic challenges, and may require technically demanding surgical or endoscopic interventions. The diagnostic value of forward-looking gastroduodenoscopy in this setting seems limited. If duodenoscopy is performed at all, the use of a side-viewing endoscope is mandatory.