How to manage difficult duodenal defects? Single center experience

The aim of this study was to investigate the surgical treatment methods and outcomes of difficult duodenal defects due to perforation.

Data of patients who had undergone surgery for difficult duodenal defect between January 2012 and November 2022 were collected. Duodenal defect size of 2 cm or more was defined as difficult duodenal defect. Characteristics of the patients, the etiology of perforation, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores, Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI), surgical treatment, need for re-operation, and morbidity and mortality were evaluated.

Nineteen patients were detected. Etiology was peptic ulcer perforation in 12 (63.1%) patients, aortaduodenal fistula in 2 (10.5%), tumor implant in 2 (10.5%), cholecystoduodenal fistula in 1 (5.2%), endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) in 1 (5.2%), and cholecystectomy related injury in 1 (5.2%) patient. The first surgical procedure was duodenoraphy + omentopexy in 8 (42.1%), Graham repair in 5 (26.3%), duodenal segment 3-4 resection and Roux-en-Y side to side duodenojejunostomy in 4 (21.0%), Roux-en-Y side to side duodenojejunostomy in 1 (0.5%), and 1 (0.5%) subtotal gastrectomy + duodenum 1^st part resection + Roux-en-Y gastroenterostomy, cholecystectomy and external biliary drainage via cystic duct. Four patients who had previously undergone Graham repair (3) and duodenoraphy + omentopexy (1) required salvage surgery. As a salvage surgery; 1 end-to-side and 3 side-to-side Roux-en-Y duodenojejunostomies were performed. Overall, mortality occurred in 6 (31.6%) patients. High ASA score and MPI were considered as significant risk factors for mortality (p= 0.015, p= 0.002).

Primary repair techniques can be used in the surgical treatment of difficult duodenal defects when peritonitis is not severe and tensionfree repair is possible. Otherwise, duodenojejunostomy may be preferred as a fast, easy, and safe technique for both initial and salvage surgeries.