Revista de gastroenterologia de Mexico · 2003
[Conservative management of duodenal perforation following endoscopic sphincterotomy of papilla of Vater].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Güitrón-Cantú Alfredo, Adalid-Martínez Raúl, Gutiérrez-Bermúdez José A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is an established procedure in treatment of diseases of the biliary tract; management of serious complications such as duodenal perforation remains controversial. Because mortality is high if sepsis is inadequately treated by no use of operative means, many surgeons advocate routine operative repair and drainage upon diagnosis. In surveys of large experiences, however, the majority patients initially were treated non-surgically, and the majority recovered.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate our experience with non-surgical management in patients with duodenal perforation after ES.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review from January 1991 to December 2000 identified 12 instances of duodenal perforation. We reviewed endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) findings, diagnostic methods, time to diagnosis, methods of management, length of patient stay, and outcome.
RESULTS: Twelve patients with diagnosis of choledocholithiasis (5) papillary stenoses (4) and carcinoma of pancreas (3) had duodenal perforation among 1,510 ES performed (0.79%). In all cases during ES, retroperitoneal air on fluoroscopic examinations was observed and diagnosis was made. One patient was managed initially by surgery and death occurred due to pulmonary complications. Eleven patients were treated conservatively with nasogastric aspiration, none by mouth intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and somatostatin analog without mortality. Median length of stay was 6.7 days.
CONCLUSIONS: Duodenal perforation after ES may be treated conservatively with success if identified during ES or early stage. Early diagnosis of duodenal perforation is essential for optimum outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate our experience with non-surgical management in patients with duodenal perforation after ES.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review from January 1991 to December 2000 identified 12 instances of duodenal perforation. We reviewed endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) findings, diagnostic methods, time to diagnosis, methods of management, length of patient stay, and outcome.
RESULTS: Twelve patients with diagnosis of choledocholithiasis (5) papillary stenoses (4) and carcinoma of pancreas (3) had duodenal perforation among 1,510 ES performed (0.79%). In all cases during ES, retroperitoneal air on fluoroscopic examinations was observed and diagnosis was made. One patient was managed initially by surgery and death occurred due to pulmonary complications. Eleven patients were treated conservatively with nasogastric aspiration, none by mouth intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and somatostatin analog without mortality. Median length of stay was 6.7 days.
CONCLUSIONS: Duodenal perforation after ES may be treated conservatively with success if identified during ES or early stage. Early diagnosis of duodenal perforation is essential for optimum outcome.