Gastroenterology Research, ISSN 1918-2805 print, 1918-2813 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, Gastroenterol Res and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website http://www.gastrores.org

Original Article

Volume 11, Number 3, June 2018, pages 207-212

Non-Operative Management of Type 2 ERCP-Related Retroperitoneal Duodenal Perforations: A 9-Year Experience From a Single Center

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Flow-chart for clinical outcome of 24 patients with post-ERCP type 2 perforations.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. CT-scan showing the presence of free retroperitoneal air, fluid collections and the placement of a percutaneous drainage catheter.

Tables

Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Type 2 Retroperitoneal Duodenal Perforation Following ERCP
 
CharacteristicsValue (%)
Age, year
  Mean (SD)71.3 ± 17.1(16.7)
  Range24 - 90
  Median71.1
Gender
  Male10 (41.7)
  Female14 (58.3)
ERCP indication
  Obstructive jaundice3 (12.5)
  Choledocholithiasis20 (83.4)
  Ampullectomy1 (4.1)
Type of procedure
  Guidewire-assisted sphincterotomy19 (79.2)
  Needle-knife precut sphincterotomy3 (12.5)
  Large balloon dilatation1 (4.2)
  Ampullectomy1 (4.2)

 

Table 2. Treatment Outcomes of Patients With Type 2 Retroperitoneal Duodenal Perforation Following ERCP
 
Conservative only treatment (n = 12)Conservative only treatment + CT-guided percutaneous drainage (n = 12)
Attempted endoscopic closure1 FCSEMS1 Endoclips
Hospitalization time10.0 ± 2.4 (range 7 - 14) days13.1 ± 10.8 (range 7 - 45) days
Total parental nutrition04 (33.4%)
Surgery02 (16.6%)
Death01 (8.3%)