Management of full-thickness duodenal laceration in the damage control era: Evolution to primary repair without diversion or decompression

John Mayberry, Loic Fabricant, Amy Anton, Lyle (Bruce) Ham, Martin Schreiber, Richard Mullins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The management of duodenal laceration (DL) is controversial. We sought to determine the influence of damage control (DC) on the use of decompression/diversion/exclusion (DDE) techniques and the risk of duodenal-related complications (DRC). We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with full-thickness DL surviving more than 72 hours in the years 1989 to 2009. Forty-one patients with a median duodenal organ injury scale of 3 and a mean abdominal trauma index (ATI) of 45 ± 24 underwent laparotomy. Twenty-five patients (61%) were treated with DC and 16 (39%) with fascial closure (FC). Although the ATI of the patients treated with DC was greater than the ATI of the patients treated with FC (56 ± 23 vs 28 ± 17, P <0.001), DRCs were equivalent (two vs three, nonsignificant). Twenty-one patients were treated in the first decade and 20 in the second decade. Between the first and second decades, there were trends toward an increased use of DC (52 to 70%, nonsignificant) and a decreased use of DDE (52 to 35%, nonsignificant) with a significant reduction in DRC (5 vs 0, P = 0.04). Among the 18 patients (44%) who underwent DDE procedures there were 2 DRCs (11%) related to DDE. Among the 23 patients who did not have DDE, there were three DRCs (13%), including two obstructions, one partial and one complete. When DC is used after DL, DDE may be unnecessary. Diversion is recommended, however, when the duodenum is at risk for obstruction after primary repair.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)681-685
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Surgeon
Volume77
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

Lacerations
Decompression
Wounds and Injuries
Duodenum
Laparotomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Management of full-thickness duodenal laceration in the damage control era : Evolution to primary repair without diversion or decompression. / Mayberry, John; Fabricant, Loic; Anton, Amy; Ham, Lyle (Bruce); Schreiber, Martin; Mullins, Richard.

In: American Surgeon, Vol. 77, No. 6, 06.2011, p. 681-685.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4e1e27cd90c4480cacc20c1854537735,
title = "Management of full-thickness duodenal laceration in the damage control era: Evolution to primary repair without diversion or decompression",
abstract = "The management of duodenal laceration (DL) is controversial. We sought to determine the influence of damage control (DC) on the use of decompression/diversion/exclusion (DDE) techniques and the risk of duodenal-related complications (DRC). We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with full-thickness DL surviving more than 72 hours in the years 1989 to 2009. Forty-one patients with a median duodenal organ injury scale of 3 and a mean abdominal trauma index (ATI) of 45 ± 24 underwent laparotomy. Twenty-five patients (61{\%}) were treated with DC and 16 (39{\%}) with fascial closure (FC). Although the ATI of the patients treated with DC was greater than the ATI of the patients treated with FC (56 ± 23 vs 28 ± 17, P <0.001), DRCs were equivalent (two vs three, nonsignificant). Twenty-one patients were treated in the first decade and 20 in the second decade. Between the first and second decades, there were trends toward an increased use of DC (52 to 70{\%}, nonsignificant) and a decreased use of DDE (52 to 35{\%}, nonsignificant) with a significant reduction in DRC (5 vs 0, P = 0.04). Among the 18 patients (44{\%}) who underwent DDE procedures there were 2 DRCs (11{\%}) related to DDE. Among the 23 patients who did not have DDE, there were three DRCs (13{\%}), including two obstructions, one partial and one complete. When DC is used after DL, DDE may be unnecessary. Diversion is recommended, however, when the duodenum is at risk for obstruction after primary repair.",
author = "John Mayberry and Loic Fabricant and Amy Anton and Ham, {Lyle (Bruce)} and Martin Schreiber and Richard Mullins",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "77",
pages = "681--685",
journal = "The American surgeon",
issn = "0003-1348",
publisher = "Southeastern Surgical Congress",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Management of full-thickness duodenal laceration in the damage control era

T2 - Evolution to primary repair without diversion or decompression

AU - Mayberry, John

AU - Fabricant, Loic

AU - Anton, Amy

AU - Ham, Lyle (Bruce)

AU - Schreiber, Martin

AU - Mullins, Richard

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - The management of duodenal laceration (DL) is controversial. We sought to determine the influence of damage control (DC) on the use of decompression/diversion/exclusion (DDE) techniques and the risk of duodenal-related complications (DRC). We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with full-thickness DL surviving more than 72 hours in the years 1989 to 2009. Forty-one patients with a median duodenal organ injury scale of 3 and a mean abdominal trauma index (ATI) of 45 ± 24 underwent laparotomy. Twenty-five patients (61%) were treated with DC and 16 (39%) with fascial closure (FC). Although the ATI of the patients treated with DC was greater than the ATI of the patients treated with FC (56 ± 23 vs 28 ± 17, P <0.001), DRCs were equivalent (two vs three, nonsignificant). Twenty-one patients were treated in the first decade and 20 in the second decade. Between the first and second decades, there were trends toward an increased use of DC (52 to 70%, nonsignificant) and a decreased use of DDE (52 to 35%, nonsignificant) with a significant reduction in DRC (5 vs 0, P = 0.04). Among the 18 patients (44%) who underwent DDE procedures there were 2 DRCs (11%) related to DDE. Among the 23 patients who did not have DDE, there were three DRCs (13%), including two obstructions, one partial and one complete. When DC is used after DL, DDE may be unnecessary. Diversion is recommended, however, when the duodenum is at risk for obstruction after primary repair.

AB - The management of duodenal laceration (DL) is controversial. We sought to determine the influence of damage control (DC) on the use of decompression/diversion/exclusion (DDE) techniques and the risk of duodenal-related complications (DRC). We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with full-thickness DL surviving more than 72 hours in the years 1989 to 2009. Forty-one patients with a median duodenal organ injury scale of 3 and a mean abdominal trauma index (ATI) of 45 ± 24 underwent laparotomy. Twenty-five patients (61%) were treated with DC and 16 (39%) with fascial closure (FC). Although the ATI of the patients treated with DC was greater than the ATI of the patients treated with FC (56 ± 23 vs 28 ± 17, P <0.001), DRCs were equivalent (two vs three, nonsignificant). Twenty-one patients were treated in the first decade and 20 in the second decade. Between the first and second decades, there were trends toward an increased use of DC (52 to 70%, nonsignificant) and a decreased use of DDE (52 to 35%, nonsignificant) with a significant reduction in DRC (5 vs 0, P = 0.04). Among the 18 patients (44%) who underwent DDE procedures there were 2 DRCs (11%) related to DDE. Among the 23 patients who did not have DDE, there were three DRCs (13%), including two obstructions, one partial and one complete. When DC is used after DL, DDE may be unnecessary. Diversion is recommended, however, when the duodenum is at risk for obstruction after primary repair.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958093346&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958093346&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 21679632

AN - SCOPUS:79958093346

VL - 77

SP - 681

EP - 685

JO - The American surgeon

JF - The American surgeon

SN - 0003-1348

IS - 6

ER -