3.8 Review

Tube Duodenostomy to Treat Large Duodenal Perforation: Our Experience and Literature Review

Journal

CHIRURGIA
Volume 117, Issue 5, Pages 594-600

Publisher

EDITURA CELSIUS
DOI: 10.21614/chirurgia.2787

Keywords

duodenostomy; duodenal perforation; gastroenteroanastomosis; emergency surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ideal approaches for the management of duodenal perforations are unclear. The tube duodenostomy is an effective and safe way to treat patients with duodenal perforation in critical conditions, although it may require an increase in post-operative hospitalization.
Background: Duodenal perforation is a life-threatening condition and ideal approaches for the management of duodenal perforations are nowadays unclear, so numerous variables must be considered. Peptic ulcer disease is the most common disease determining a duodenal perforation, however, there may be other less common causes. We retrospectively analyzed all the patients who presented at our Division of General Surgery for a Duodenal Perforation, from September 2018 to December 2019.Methods: We focused on patients requiring a tube duodenostomy. Five patients were included in this study.Results: Five patients suffering from a duodenal perforation were analyzed and their data collected. All patients were treated with tube duodenostomy, pyloric exclusion and omega loop gastro-enteroanastomosis. The duodenostomy was removed four weeks after surgery. All patients suffered postsurgical complications ranging from wound infection to pneumonitis; the incidence of severe complications was greater in the older patients. We did not record any deaths four months after the operation.Conclusions: The tube duodenostomy is an old and dated procedure but simple to implement, which may require an increase in post-operative hospitalization, but which subsists as an effective and safe way to treat patients in critical conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available