We have located links that may give you full text access.
A tailored approach to the management of perforations following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy.
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2011 December
BACKGROUND: The management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related perforations remains controversial. Τhe aim of the study was to determine the incidence of perforations following ERCP, their characteristics, operative and non-operative management options and clinical outcome.
METHODS: A retrospective review of ERCP-related perforations, during a 21-year period, was performed. Each perforation was categorized into types I to IV according to the location, mechanism and radiographic evaluation of the injury. Comparisons were made between patients treated operatively and non-operatively.
RESULTS: Forty-four perforations (0.4%) occurred in 9,880 procedures. They were mainly caused by the passage of the endoscope (type I) in 7 (16%) and sphincterotomy (type II) in 30 (68%) patients. The management was non-operative in 32 (72%) and operative in 12 patients. In multivariate analysis, only the type of perforation (type I: endoscope-related) was found significant for predicting operative treatment. The hospital stay was longer for patients requiring an operation (median, 24 vs 9 days). The overall mortality was 2/44 (4.5%). There was no death in the non-operative group.
CONCLUSIONS: The need for immediate operative intervention should be based on the type of injury and clinical findings. Patients with type I perforations should be treated surgically and primary repair should be tried. Patients with type II injuries may be treated initially non-operatively. Delayed operative intervention will be required in a minority of these patients.
METHODS: A retrospective review of ERCP-related perforations, during a 21-year period, was performed. Each perforation was categorized into types I to IV according to the location, mechanism and radiographic evaluation of the injury. Comparisons were made between patients treated operatively and non-operatively.
RESULTS: Forty-four perforations (0.4%) occurred in 9,880 procedures. They were mainly caused by the passage of the endoscope (type I) in 7 (16%) and sphincterotomy (type II) in 30 (68%) patients. The management was non-operative in 32 (72%) and operative in 12 patients. In multivariate analysis, only the type of perforation (type I: endoscope-related) was found significant for predicting operative treatment. The hospital stay was longer for patients requiring an operation (median, 24 vs 9 days). The overall mortality was 2/44 (4.5%). There was no death in the non-operative group.
CONCLUSIONS: The need for immediate operative intervention should be based on the type of injury and clinical findings. Patients with type I perforations should be treated surgically and primary repair should be tried. Patients with type II injuries may be treated initially non-operatively. Delayed operative intervention will be required in a minority of these patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app