Endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations, a scoping review.
Duodenum
Endoscopy
Perforation
Repair
Review
Surgery
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Aug 2024
14 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
15
04
2024
accepted:
01
08
2024
medline:
15
8
2024
pubmed:
15
8
2024
entrez:
14
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
There is a discrepancy in the surgical and endoscopic literature for managing duodenal perforations. Although often managed conservatively, surgical repair is the standard treatment for duodenal perforations. This contrasts with the gastroenterology literature, which now recommends endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations, which are more frequently iatrogenic from the growing field of advanced endoscopic procedures. This study aims to provide a scoping review to summarize the current literature content and quality on endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations. The protocol for performing this scoping review was outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. All studies that reported primary outcomes of patients who had undergone endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations before February 2022, regardless of perforation etiology or repair type were reviewed, with studies after 1999 meeting inclusion criteria. The study excluded articles that did not report clinical outcomes of endoscopic repair, articles that did not describe where in the gastrointestinal tract the endoscopic repair occurred, pediatric patients, and animal studies. 7606 abstracts were screened, with 474 full articles reviewed and 152 studies met inclusion criteria. 560 patients had duodenal perforations repaired endoscopically, with a technical success rate of 90.4% and a survival rate of 86.7%. Most of these perforations (74.5%) were iatrogenic from endoscopic procedures or surgery. Only one randomized control trial (RCT) was found, and 53% of studies were case reports. These results suggest that endoscopic repair could emerge as a viable first-line treatment for duodenal perforation and highlight the need for more high-quality research in this topic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is a discrepancy in the surgical and endoscopic literature for managing duodenal perforations. Although often managed conservatively, surgical repair is the standard treatment for duodenal perforations. This contrasts with the gastroenterology literature, which now recommends endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations, which are more frequently iatrogenic from the growing field of advanced endoscopic procedures. This study aims to provide a scoping review to summarize the current literature content and quality on endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations.
METHODS
METHODS
The protocol for performing this scoping review was outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. All studies that reported primary outcomes of patients who had undergone endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations before February 2022, regardless of perforation etiology or repair type were reviewed, with studies after 1999 meeting inclusion criteria. The study excluded articles that did not report clinical outcomes of endoscopic repair, articles that did not describe where in the gastrointestinal tract the endoscopic repair occurred, pediatric patients, and animal studies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
7606 abstracts were screened, with 474 full articles reviewed and 152 studies met inclusion criteria. 560 patients had duodenal perforations repaired endoscopically, with a technical success rate of 90.4% and a survival rate of 86.7%. Most of these perforations (74.5%) were iatrogenic from endoscopic procedures or surgery. Only one randomized control trial (RCT) was found, and 53% of studies were case reports.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that endoscopic repair could emerge as a viable first-line treatment for duodenal perforation and highlight the need for more high-quality research in this topic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39143329
doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11133-x
pii: 10.1007/s00464-024-11133-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ansari D, Toren W, Lindberg S, Pyrhonen HS, Andersson R (2019) Diagnosis and management of duodenal perforations: a narrative review. Scand J Gastroenterol 54(8):939–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2019.1647456
doi: 10.1080/00365521.2019.1647456
pubmed: 31353983
Stapfer M, Selby RR, Stain SC et al (2000) Management of duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. Ann Surg 232(2):191–198. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200008000-00007
doi: 10.1097/00000658-200008000-00007
pubmed: 10903596
pmcid: 1421129
Vezakis A, Fragulidis G, Polydorou A (2015) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforations: diagnosis and management. World J Gastrointest Endosc 7(14):1135–1141. https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v7.i14.1135
doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i14.1135
pubmed: 26468337
pmcid: 4600179
Malhotra A, Biffl WL, Moore EE et al (2015) Western trauma association critical decisions in trauma: diagnosis and management of duodenal injuries. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 79(6):1096–1101. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000870
doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000870
pubmed: 26680146
Machado NO (2012) Management of duodenal perforation post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: when and whom to operate and what factors determine the outcome? A review article. JOP 13(1):18–25
pubmed: 22233942
Zhu G, Hu F, Wang C (2021) Recent advances in prevention and management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related duodenal perforation. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 16(1):19–29. https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2020.101025
doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2020.101025
pubmed: 33786113
Dahale AS, Srivastava S, Saluja SS, Sachdeva S, Dalal A, Varakanahalli S (2021) Management of scope-induced type I duodenal perforations: over-the-scope clip versus surgery. Indian J Gastroenterol 40(3):287–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-021-01152-0
doi: 10.1007/s12664-021-01152-0
pubmed: 33974228
pmcid: 8195754
Paspatis GA, Arvanitakis M, Dumonceau JM et al (2020) Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) position statement—update 2020. Endoscopy 52(9):792–810. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1222-3191
doi: 10.1055/a-1222-3191
pubmed: 32781470
Munn Z, Stone JC, Aromataris E et al (2023) Assessing the risk of bias of quantitative analytical studies: introducing the vision for critical appraisal within JBI systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synth 21(3):467–471. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00224
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00224
pubmed: 36476419
Zhu C, Platoff R, Ghobrial G et al (2022) What to do when decompressive gastrostomies and jejunostomies are not options? A scoping review of transesophageal gastrostomy tubes for advanced malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol 29(1):262–271. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10667-x
doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10667-x
pubmed: 34546480
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
pubmed: 8721797
Artifon EL, Minata MK, Cunha MA et al (2015) Surgical or endoscopic management for post-ERCP large transmural duodenal perforations: a randomized prospective trial. Rev Gastroenterol Peru Oct-Dec 35(4):313–317
Rustagi T, Jamidar PA (2015) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related adverse events: general overview. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 25(1):97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2014.09.005
doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2014.09.005
pubmed: 25442961
Lee JH, Kedia P, Stavropoulos SN, Carr-Locke D (2021) AGA clinical practice update on endoscopic management of perforations in gastrointestinal tract: expert review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 19(11):2252–2226.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2021.06.045
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.06.045
pubmed: 34224876