Calculators, Algorithms, Drug Interaction CheckersTools
Back To Search Results

Duodenal Perforation

Author: Afshin Amini Editor: Richard A. Lopez Updated: 3/13/2023 3:45:25 PM

Introduction

Anatomically, the duodenum is part of the gastrointestinal tract between the stomach and small intestine. It includes 4 segments:

  1. The proximal segment is a duodenal bulb, which connects to the liver via the hepatoduodenal ligament containing the hepatic artery, the portal vein, and the common bile duct.
  2. The second or descending segment is surrounding the pancreatic head.
  3. The third segment is the horizontal part. The superior mesenteric vessels are ventral to this segment.
  4. The fourth segment follows the jejunum.

Duodenal perforation is a rare but lethal condition.[1] The mortality rate ranges from 8% to 25% in the literature.[2][3][4] In 1688, the perforated duodenal ulcer was described by Muralto and reported by Lenepneau.[5] Subsequently, in 1894, Dean reported the first case, which successfully underwent surgical closing of a perforated duodenal ulcer.[6] In 1929, Cellan-Jones described a technique for repairing perforations by using an omental, and later, in 1937, Graham modified that technique.[7][5] Duodenal perforation can either be free or contained. Free perforation arises when bowel contents leak freely into the abdominal cavity and cause diffuse peritonitis. Contained perforation occurs when the ulcer creates a full-thickness hole, but contiguous organs, such as the pancreas, that wall off the area prevent free leakage.[5] Peptic ulcer disease is a significant cause of duodenal perforation.[8] Typically, patients with duodenal ulcers have nocturnal abdominal pain or feel hungry. If perforation occurs, it usually can cause a sudden onset of severe pain in the upper abdomen.[9] However, in immunocompromised or elderly patients, the clinical signs can be undetectable and delay diagnosis. Imaging has an essential role in diagnosis and, subsequently, for early resuscitation. Appropriate selection of therapeutic alternatives and risk assessment can decrease the risk of morbidity and mortality.[10]

Etiology

Register For Free And Read The Full Article
Get the answers you need instantly with the StatPearls Clinical Decision Support tool. StatPearls spent the last decade developing the largest and most updated Point-of Care resource ever developed. Earn CME/CE by searching and reading articles.
  • Dropdown arrow Search engine and full access to all medical articles
  • Dropdown arrow 10 free questions in your specialty
  • Dropdown arrow Free CME/CE Activities
  • Dropdown arrow Free daily question in your email
  • Dropdown arrow Save favorite articles to your dashboard
  • Dropdown arrow Emails offering discounts

Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care

Etiology

Underlying Duodenal Pathology

  1. Peptic ulcer disease (PUD): H. pylori infection and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are 2 major causes of PUD and, subsequently, duodenal perforation.[8] Although the incidence of PUD has decreased in recent years, it is still the main cause of duodenal perforation.[11]
    • Smoking, physiological stress, previous history of PUD, and corticosteroids are other risk factors for a perforated peptic ulcer (PPU).[12]
    • Alcohol consumption is known to cause an increase in gastrin secretion and damage gastric mucosa. However, studies did not show that alcohol can cause PUD.[13]
  2. Duodenal diverticula [14]
  3. Infectious disease (tuberculosis, rotavirus, norovirus, Ascaris lumbricoides) [15][16][17]
  4. Autoimmune conditions, including scleroderma, Crohn disease, and abdominal polyarteritis nodosa.[18][19][20]
  5. Duodenal ischemia [21]
  6. Impacted gallstones in the duodenum [22]
  7. Chemotherapy [23][24]
  8. Tumors [25]

Iatrogenic: Due to the widespread use of endoscopic procedures, it is becoming more common.[26]

  1. Endoscopic perforations: These include diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. However, the incidence of perforation is higher in therapeutic procedures.  
  2. Operative injury: Surgical instruments can cause duodenal perforation. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can perforate the duodenum (0.015%) during thermal burns by electrocautery or blunt or sharp dissection.[27][28]

Trauma: Isolated duodenal injuries are uncommon and usually occur with other organ injuries.[29] 

Foreign bodies: Thin and sharp foreign bodies correlate with higher perforation risk.[30]

Spontaneous perforations: Spontaneous perforations occur in neonates with unknown underlying causes.[31]

Epidemiology

Although the incidence of PUD has decreased in recent years, it is still the prominent cause of duodenal perforation.[11] Annually, peptic ulcer disease (PUD) affects 4 million people worldwide, with an incidence rate of 1.5% to 3%.[32][33] About 5% of patients with PUD experience perforation in their lifetime.[34] Decreased PUD rates are explained by eradication treatment for Helicobacter pylori and using proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). However, the perforation of peptic ulcers is still concerning. The aging population, overuse of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and NSAIDs' interaction with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and steroids are possible reasons that can explain the high incidence of perforation.[4][35] Furthermore, studies show that H. pylori prevalence ranges from 50% to 80% in patients with perforated duodenal ulcers.[36] Studies show more ulcer perforation occurs in the morning, and the mechanism is explainable by circadian variation in acid secretion.[10]

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)  duodenal perforations reported with rate ranges from 0.09% to 1.67%.[37][38] Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, old age, precut, anatomical abnormalities, and injection of contrast medium are the factors that cause an increased risk of post-ERCP duodenal perforations.[39][40]

  • Less than 2% of traumatic abdominal injuries involve the duodenum.[41]
  • Less than 1% of ingested foreign bodies can cause gastrointestinal perforations.[42]

Pathophysiology

Underlying Duodenal Pathology

The leading causes of perforated peptic ulcers remain NSAID use and H. pylori.[11] NSAIDs can reduce prostaglandin secretion by inhibiting COX-1 in the gastrointestinal tract, leading to a gastroduodenal mucosal injury. NSAID use in specific patients, such as co-prescription of antiplatelets, corticosteroids, anticoagulants, age over 65 years, heart disease, and peptic ulcer disease history, can increase the risk of gastroduodenal mucosal injury.[43] Prolonged and high-dose NSAID use are additional risk factors for gastroduodenal mucosal injury. Furthermore, studies revealed that piroxicam and ketorolac have the highest mucosal injury effect in the NSAID family.[44] H. pylori infection is another contributory factor for duodenal ulcers. Possibly, H. pylori, by inducing gastric metaplasia, stimulating Immune response and gastric acid secretion, and reducing mucosal defense, can cause duodenal injury and, subsequently, duodenal perforation.[45]

Iatrogenic

The Stapfer classification categorizes post-ERCP duodenal perforations into 4 types. The endoscope causes type I perforations (lateral or medial duodenal wall perforations). Type II perforations or peri-Vaterian injuries occur during sphincterotomy. Type III perforations or distal bile duct injuries are caused by basket or wire instrumentation, and type IV perforations are diagnosed by retroperitoneal air on imaging and are usually asymptomatic.[46] Duodenal perforation can be either free or contained. Free perforation arises when bowel contents leak freely into the abdominal cavity, causing diffuse peritonitis. Contained perforation occurs when the ulcer creates a full-thickness hole, but free leakage is prevented by contiguous organs such as the pancreas wall off the area.[5] In duodenal perforation, gastric acid juice initially leaks into the peritoneal cavity, leading to profound chemical peritonitis. In this phase, the patients can appear free of symptoms. If the leakage is not closed, food particles can reach the peritoneal cavity and gradually develop into bacterial peritonitis, leading to abdominal symptoms.[5]

History and Physical

To obtain a thorough history, clinicians should query patients regarding perforated peptic ulcer risk factors. However, if the PPU occurred, the patient's history does not change the treatment plan.[9] Typical symptoms for a PPU are defined by sudden onset of abdominal pain, which never completely subsides, even with premedical remedies. The classic triad in PPU patients is tachycardia, sudden onset of abdominal pain, and abdominal rigidity. Abdominal tenderness with rigidity and tachycardia are common clinical signs.[9] Three phases define the clinical manifestations of PPU. Within 2 hours of onset (initial phase), tachycardia, epigastric pain, and cold extremities are characteristic. Within 2 to 12 hours (second phase), pain becomes generalized and increases with movement. Fluid moving along the right paracolic gutter can lead to typical signs such as right lower quadrant tenderness and abdominal rigidity. Over 12 hours (third phase) can manifest as abdominal distension, fever, and hypotension.[13] Patients with retroperitoneal perforation present more indolently without peritoneal signs.[5]

Evaluation

Laboratory Tests

Laboratory tests commonly used to rule out differential diagnoses items:

  • Increased serum amylase levels less than 4 times normal can be associated with PPU.[47]
  • Serum gastrin levels are useful in diagnosing Zollinger-Ellison syndrome in patients with a history of recurrent ulcers.[13]
  • Leukocytosis and high C-reactive protein levels indicate existing of inflammation or infection.[48]
  • Blood cultures are necessary before starting antibiotics.[49]
  • An arterial blood gas measures the level of metabolic compromise in septic patients.[10]

Radiography

In acute upper abdominal pain, an urgent upright chest radiograph (CXR) is a basic essential test for duodenal perforation. Upright CXR shows free air below the diaphragm in 75% of patients. However, it can be normal, especially in patients who present early after symptom initiation.[50] Existing of free air on upright CXR in patients with abdominal symptoms establishes the diagnosis of PPU. In some patients with the abdomen, an X-ray may reveal the Rigler sign (air in the intestinal lumen and outside of the bowel wall), a football sign (a large volume of free gas appears in a large round black area), and gas surrounding the soft tissue structures such falciform ligament or liver edge.[51][52] Normal upright X-rays do not rule out duodenal perforation, and in stable patients who are clinically suspicious of duodenal perforation, it is essential to evaluate by computed tomography scan.[5] 

A non-contrast computed tomography scan is suitable to see free air below the anterior abdominal wall in patients with acute kidney injury. The diagnostic accuracy of PPU detection by computed tomography scan is about 98%.[53] Oral diatrizoate can help diagnose PPU when the computed tomography scan is unavailable and upright CXR does not show free air. However, the absence of leakage does not exclude PPU, as the perforation can seal off spontaneously.[54] A double-contrast computed tomography scan is the most valuable method for diagnosing duodenal perforation.[55] Computed tomography perforation features include duodenal wall thickening, extravasated oral contrast, extraluminal air, fat stranding, and periduodenal fluid collection.[55]

Treatment / Management

Management of duodenal perforations depends on the type of perforation. Two kinds of perforation are defined as contained or non-contained perforation. Non-contained perforation is divided into 2 subgroups: minor or major.

  1. Contained perforations are when free leakage is prevented by contiguous organs such as the pancreas wall off the area. It is feasible to do conservative management in this type of perforation. Before starting conservative management, it is essential to evaluate patients using a diatrizoate study to confirm the absence of leakage. Conservative management includes intravenous fluid therapy, nil per os, intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), broad-spectrum antibiotics, H. pylori eradication, and repeated clinical assessment.[5] The data shows that somatostatin can be useful for enterocutaneous fistula closure.[56] In contained perforation patients, studies reported the mortality rate with conservative management was 3% versus 6.2% with surgical management.[57] The essential components of conservative management of duodenal perforation are gatherable as “R”s: (1) Repeated clinical examination; (2) Radiologically undetected leak; (3) Repeated blood investigations; (4) Resources for monitoring; (5) Respiratory and renal support; and (6) Readiness to operate.[13]
  2. Non-contained perforations are when bowel contents leak freely into the abdominal cavity. Minor and major perforations are 2 subtypes of this group.[5]
    • Minor non-contained perforations: Endoscopic or simple surgical repair are 2 primary management strategies for this group. Endoscopic management includes through-the-scope clips, over-the-scope clips, detachable snare loops with clips, and self-expandable metal stents.[5] Through-the-scope clip management is favorable for linear perforations less than 1 cm, while in perforations with a range from 1 to 3 cm, over-the-scope clips, detachable snare loops with clips, and self-expandable metal stents are suitable management options.[58] Simple surgical treatment is another option for the management of minor non-contained perforation. The surgeon can perform it with or without an omental patch. Alternatively, a free omental plug (Graham patch) or a pedicled omental flap, known as a Cellan–Jones repair, can be sutured into the perforation.[5][7] Studies did not show any benefit for drain placement after surgical repair.[59]
    • Major non-contained perforations: These types of perforations usually need reconstructive surgery, which includes duodenoduodenostomy (first option), Roux-en-Y duodenojejunostomy (second option), and Billroth II operation.[41] Perforation in the first or proximal second portion requires management by the Billroth II operation.[60]
    3. (A1)

Differential Diagnosis

Before imaging, the differential diagnosis for epigastric abdominal pain remains large and includes: 

  • Abdominal aortic aneurysm
  • Acute coronary syndrome
  • Aortic dissection
  • Pancreatitis
  • Appendicitis
  • Boerhaave syndrome
  • Cholecystitis
  • Cholelithiasis 
  • Diverticulitis
  • Duodenitis
  • Esophagitis
  • Gastroesophageal reflux disease
  • Foreign body ingestion
  • Gastritis
  • Hepatitis
  • Ventral hernia
  • Mesenteric ischemia
  • Small bowel obstruction
  • Volvulus
  • Pneumonia

Prognosis

Mortality rate in PPU patients reported ranging from 1.3% to 20%.[61][62][63] Other studies have reported 30 days mortality rate reaching 20%.[35] The primary prognostic factor is the duodenal perforation and treatment time interval. The interval time greater than 24 hours increases mortality.[5] The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and Boey scores are the most commonly validated scoring systems to predict outcomes in duodenal perforation.[13] Boey score factors include concomitant severe medical illness, preoperative shock, and the duration of perforation over 24 hours. When all these factors are positive, the total score count is 3, which predicts mortality as 38% and morbidity as 77%.[64] The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score uses the present systemic disease and degree of comorbidity as parameters to predict the outcome of PPU.[64] 

Significant risk factors that increase the mortality rate are co-morbidities, resection surgery, presence of shock at admission, female, elderly patients, metabolic acidosis, a delayed presentation of more than 24 hours, acute renal failure, hypoalbuminemia, smokers, and being underweight.[65][66] Studies show the mortality rate is higher in patients older than 65 compared to younger patients.[65] The postoperative mortality rate in patients with PPU is estimated to be 6% to 10%.[67] Delays in treatment greater than 24 hours, age over 60 years old, concomitant diseases, and systolic blood pressure less than 100 mmHg are the main risk factors that increase the mortality rate.[68]

Complications

Sepsis is common and accounts for 40% to 50% of fatalities in patients with PPU. On arrival in the operating room, about 30% to 35% of patients with PPU have sepsis. More than 25% of the patients Within the first month of surgery develop septic shock, which causes a mortality rate of 50% to 60%.[10] Postoperative complications were reported in 30% of patients.[69] Age greater than 40 years, a history of shock, and a larger size of perforation are reported as risk factors that cause an increase in the rate of postoperative complications.[70] Common surgical complications include pneumonia, wound dehiscence, peritonitis, incisional hernia, enterocutaneous fistula,intra-abdominal collection/abscess, surgical site infection, and ileus. Surgical site infection (32%) has been reported as the most common complication after surgery.[70]

Postoperative and Rehabilitation Care

 A non-randomized study reported that the management protocol from admission to 3 days after laparoscopic repair reduced the 30-day mortality rate from 27% to 17%. Management protocol in this study included minimizing surgical delay and preventing, detecting, and treating sepsis.[10] Small randomized clinical trials in Turkey concluded that in patients with an ASA score of I or II, early removal of tubes and early start of oral intake reduced patients' hospital stay by about 3 days.[71] A meta-analysis by Wong et al reported that in duodenal ulcer perforation patients, eradication of H. pylori showed a significant effect in reducing recurrent ulcer incidence at 8 weeks and 1 year for post-surgical patients.[72] Endoscopy follow-up is not recommended in patients with duodenal ulcer perforation due to the low risk of malignancy in such patients.[10]

Consultations

Following a diagnosis of duodenal perforation, consult with a gastroenterologist and gastrointestinal surgeon.

Deterrence and Patient Education

Patients should be aware of the possible risk factors for duodenal perforation and try to avoid them. Peptic ulcers are still the leading cause, so prevention of duodenal perforation is the same as peptic ulcer disease.

  • Patients need to avoid using NSAIDs.
  • If patients need to take NSAIDs for any reason, they should try to take them at a low dose and for the shortest duration.
  • Consider prophylaxis (such as PPI or H2 blockers) if patients require NSAIDs for a long time.
  • Patients with peptic ulcer disease should follow gastroenterologist recommendations.
  • Quit smoking

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

PUD is treatable with medications. However, PUD may perforate and lead to high mortality risk. The classic triad for PPU is the sudden onset of abdominal pain, abdominal rigidity, and tachycardia. Physicians should know that a normal upright chest X-ray does not rule out duodenal perforation. Early diagnosis, quick resuscitation, and urgent surgical intervention are crucial to improving outcomes. Experienced teams should direct conservative management. The gold standard treatment is still exploratory laparotomy and omental patch repair. During the hospital stay, nurses monitor the patient's vital signs and educate the patients and their families.

Once the patients have been discharged, they should receive education from the medical care team regarding lifestyle modification, including quitting smoking and avoiding NSAIDs as much as possible. Patients with positive H. pylori should take medication to eradicate the infection; data shows this can decrease the mortality rate. Gastroenterology nurses should follow up with patients, educate them, and update the team regarding their condition. The pharmacist should discuss with patients the importance of medication compliance (such as PPI, H2 blocker, or H. pylori treatment) to decrease the mortality rate and limit NSAID use. Only through an interprofessional team approach can clinicians reduce the mortality and morbidity of duodenal perforation. Older age, shock, delayed surgery, definitive surgery, and ASA risk can lead to poor patient outcomes with PPU undergoing emergency surgery. Hence, improving overall outcomes requires proper resuscitation from shock, decreasing delayed surgery grade, reserving definitive surgery for selected patients, and improving ASA scores.[66][65]

References

[1]

Lopez PP, Gogna S, Khorasani-Zadeh A. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis: Duodenum. StatPearls. 2024 Jan:():     [PubMed PMID: 29494012]

[2]

Machado NO. Management of duodenal perforation post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. When and whom to operate and what factors determine the outcome? A review article. JOP : Journal of the pancreas. 2012 Jan 10:13(1):18-25     [PubMed PMID: 22233942]

[3]

Møller MH, Adamsen S, Thomsen RW, Møller AM, Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) trial group. Multicentre trial of a perioperative protocol to reduce mortality in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. The British journal of surgery. 2011 Jun:98(6):802-10. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7429. Epub 2011 Mar 25     [PubMed PMID: 21442610]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[4]

Lau JY, Sung J, Hill C, Henderson C, Howden CW, Metz DC. Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease: incidence, recurrence, risk factors and mortality. Digestion. 2011:84(2):102-13. doi: 10.1159/000323958. Epub 2011 Apr 14     [PubMed PMID: 21494041]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[5]

Ansari D, Torén W, Lindberg S, Pyrhönen HS, Andersson R. Diagnosis and management of duodenal perforations: a narrative review. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. 2019 Aug:54(8):939-944. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2019.1647456. Epub 2019 Jul 27     [PubMed PMID: 31353983]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[6]

Dean HP. A Case of Perforation of a Chronic Ulcer of the Duodenum Successfully Treated by Excision: Death Two Months later from Acute Intestinal Obstruction by a Band. British medical journal. 1894 May 12:1(1741):1014-5     [PubMed PMID: 20754798]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[7]

Cellan-Jones CJ. A RAPID METHOD OF TREATMENT IN PERFORATED DUODENAL ULCER. British medical journal. 1929 Jun 15:1(3571):1076-7     [PubMed PMID: 20774747]

[8]

Behrman SW. Management of complicated peptic ulcer disease. Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 2005 Feb:140(2):201-8     [PubMed PMID: 15724004]

[9]

Lanas A, Chan FKL. Peptic ulcer disease. Lancet (London, England). 2017 Aug 5:390(10094):613-624. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32404-7. Epub 2017 Feb 25     [PubMed PMID: 28242110]

[10]

Søreide K, Thorsen K, Harrison EM, Bingener J, Møller MH, Ohene-Yeboah M, Søreide JA. Perforated peptic ulcer. Lancet (London, England). 2015 Sep 26:386(10000):1288-1298. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00276-7. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 26460663]

[11]

Sung JJ, Kuipers EJ, El-Serag HB. Systematic review: the global incidence and prevalence of peptic ulcer disease. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2009 May 1:29(9):938-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.03960.x. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 19220208]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[12]

Vergara M, Catalán M, Gisbert JP, Calvet X. Meta-analysis: role of Helicobacter pylori eradication in the prevention of peptic ulcer in NSAID users. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2005 Jun 15:21(12):1411-8     [PubMed PMID: 15948807]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[13]

Chung KT, Shelat VG. Perforated peptic ulcer - an update. World journal of gastrointestinal surgery. 2017 Jan 27:9(1):1-12. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v9.i1.1. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 28138363]

[14]

Thorson CM, Paz Ruiz PS, Roeder RA, Sleeman D, Casillas VJ. The perforated duodenal diverticulum. Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 2012 Jan:147(1):81-8. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.821. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 22250120]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[15]

Ueda N. Gastroduodenal Perforation and Ulcer Associated With Rotavirus and Norovirus Infections in Japanese Children: A Case Report and Comprehensive Literature Review. Open forum infectious diseases. 2016 Jan:3(1):ofw026. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofw026. Epub 2016 Feb 9     [PubMed PMID: 26989751]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[16]

Berney T, Badaoui E, Tötsch M, Mentha G, Morel P. Duodenal tuberculosis presenting as acute ulcer perforation. The American journal of gastroenterology. 1998 Oct:93(10):1989-91     [PubMed PMID: 9772074]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[17]

Sarmast AH, Parray FQ, Showkat HI, Lone YA, Bhat NA. Duodenal perforation with an unusual presentation: a case report. Case reports in infectious diseases. 2011:2011():512607. doi: 10.1155/2011/512607. Epub 2011 Sep 7     [PubMed PMID: 22567473]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[18]

Katz S, Talansky A, Kahn E. Recurrent free perforation in gastroduodenal Crohn's disease. The American journal of gastroenterology. 1983 Nov:78(11):722-5     [PubMed PMID: 6637961]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[19]

Ebert EC, Ruggiero FM, Seibold JR. Intestinal perforation. A common complication of scleroderma. Digestive diseases and sciences. 1997 Mar:42(3):549-53     [PubMed PMID: 9073138]

[20]

Tun M, Malik AK. Massive small bowel infarction and duodenal perforation due to abdominal polyarteritis nodosa: a case report. The Malaysian journal of pathology. 1994 Jun:16(1):75-8     [PubMed PMID: 16329580]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[21]

Haruna L, Aber A, Rashid F, Barreca M. Acute mesenteric ischemia and duodenal ulcer perforation: a unique double pathology. BMC surgery. 2012 Oct 30:12():21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-12-21. Epub 2012 Oct 30     [PubMed PMID: 23110681]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[22]

Thomas TL, Jaques PF, Weaver PC. Gallstone obstruction and perforation of the duodenal bulb. The British journal of surgery. 1976 Feb:63(2):131-2     [PubMed PMID: 1252712]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[23]

Chao TC, Jeng LB, Jan YY, Wang CS, Chen MF. Spontaneous gastroduodenal perforation in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Hepato-gastroenterology. 1998 Nov-Dec:45(24):2157-60     [PubMed PMID: 9951884]

[24]

Vaidya R, Habermann TM, Donohue JH, Ristow KM, Maurer MJ, Macon WR, Colgan JP, Inwards DJ, Ansell SM, Porrata LF, Micallef IN, Johnston PB, Markovic SN, Thompson CA, Nowakowski GS, Witzig TE. Bowel perforation in intestinal lymphoma: incidence and clinical features. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2013 Sep:24(9):2439-43. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt188. Epub 2013 May 22     [PubMed PMID: 23704194]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[25]

Negoi I, Paun S, Hostiuc S, Stoica B, Tanase I, Negoi RI, Beuran M. Most small bowel cancers are revealed by a complication. Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil). 2015 Oct-Dec:13(4):500-5. doi: 10.1590/S1679-45082015AO3380. Epub 2015 Dec 11     [PubMed PMID: 26676271]

[26]

Cirocchi R, Kelly MD, Griffiths EA, Tabola R, Sartelli M, Carlini L, Ghersi S, Di Saverio S. A systematic review of the management and outcome of ERCP related duodenal perforations using a standardized classification system. The surgeon : journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland. 2017 Dec:15(6):379-387. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2017.05.004. Epub 2017 Jun 12     [PubMed PMID: 28619547]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[27]

Deziel DJ, Millikan KW, Economou SG, Doolas A, Ko ST, Airan MC. Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a national survey of 4,292 hospitals and an analysis of 77,604 cases. American journal of surgery. 1993 Jan:165(1):9-14     [PubMed PMID: 8418705]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[28]

Machado NO. Duodenal injury post laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Incidence, mechanism, management and outcome. World journal of gastrointestinal surgery. 2016 Apr 27:8(4):335-44. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v8.i4.335. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 27152141]

[29]

Pandey S, Niranjan A, Mishra S, Agrawal T, Singhal BM, Prakash A, Attri PC. Retrospective analysis of duodenal injuries: a comprehensive overview. Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. 2011 Mar-Apr:17(2):142-4. doi: 10.4103/1319-3767.77247. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 21372354]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[30]

Kusters PJ, Keulen ET, Peters FP. Duodenal perforation following bile duct endoprosthesis placement. Endoscopy. 2014:46 Suppl 1 UCTN():E646-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390849. Epub 2014 Dec 19     [PubMed PMID: 25526406]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[31]

Nazzal M, Kaidi A, Lee YM. Spontaneous duodenal perforation in neonates: a case report and review of literature. The American surgeon. 1996 Sep:62(9):706-8     [PubMed PMID: 8751759]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[32]

Zelickson MS, Bronder CM, Johnson BL, Camunas JA, Smith DE, Rawlinson D, Von S, Stone HH, Taylor SM. Helicobacter pylori is not the predominant etiology for peptic ulcers requiring operation. The American surgeon. 2011 Aug:77(8):1054-60     [PubMed PMID: 21944523]

[33]

Zittel TT, Jehle EC, Becker HD. Surgical management of peptic ulcer disease today--indication, technique and outcome. Langenbeck's archives of surgery. 2000 Mar:385(2):84-96     [PubMed PMID: 10796046]

[34]

Vaira D, Menegatti M, Miglioli M. What is the role of Helicobacter pylori in complicated ulcer disease? Gastroenterology. 1997 Dec:113(6 Suppl):S78-84     [PubMed PMID: 9394765]

[35]

Søreide K, Thorsen K, Søreide JA. Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. The British journal of surgery. 2014 Jan:101(1):e51-64. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9368. Epub 2013 Nov 29     [PubMed PMID: 24338777]

[36]

Gisbert JP, Pajares JM. Helicobacter pylori infection and perforated peptic ulcer prevalence of the infection and role of antimicrobial treatment. Helicobacter. 2003 Jun:8(3):159-67     [PubMed PMID: 12752726]

[37]

Dubecz A, Ottmann J, Schweigert M, Stadlhuber RJ, Feith M, Wiessner V, Muschweck H, Stein HJ. Management of ERCP-related small bowel perforations: the pivotal role of physical investigation. Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie. 2012 Apr:55(2):99-104. doi: 10.1503/cjs.027110. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 22564521]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[38]

Rabie ME, Mir NH, Al Skaini MS, El Hakeem I, Hadad A, Ageely H, Shaban AN, Obaid M, Hummadi AM. Operative and non-operative management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated duodenal injuries. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2013 May:95(4):285-90. doi: 10.1308/003588413X13511609958578. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 23676815]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[39]

Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, Chilovi F, Costan F, De Berardinis F, De Bernardin M, Ederle A, Fina P, Fratton A. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 1998 Jul:48(1):1-10     [PubMed PMID: 9684657]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[40]

Enns R, Eloubeidi MA, Mergener K, Jowell PS, Branch MS, Pappas TM, Baillie J. ERCP-related perforations: risk factors and management. Endoscopy. 2002 Apr:34(4):293-8     [PubMed PMID: 11932784]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[41]

Malhotra A, Biffl WL, Moore EE, Schreiber M, Albrecht RA, Cohen M, Croce M, Karmy-Jones R, Namias N, Rowell S, Shatz DV, Brasel KJ. Western Trauma Association Critical Decisions in Trauma: Diagnosis and management of duodenal injuries. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery. 2015 Dec:79(6):1096-101. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000870. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 26680146]

[42]

Gardner AW, Radwan RW, Allison MC, Codd RJ. Double duodenal perforation following foreign body ingestion. BMJ case reports. 2017 Dec 7:2017():. pii: bcr-2017-223182. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2017-223182. Epub 2017 Dec 7     [PubMed PMID: 29222210]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[43]

Drini M. Peptic ulcer disease and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Australian prescriber. 2017 Jun:40(3):91-93. doi: 10.18773/austprescr.2017.037. Epub 2017 Jun 1     [PubMed PMID: 28798512]

[44]

Castellsague J, Riera-Guardia N, Calingaert B, Varas-Lorenzo C, Fourrier-Reglat A, Nicotra F, Sturkenboom M, Perez-Gutthann S, Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (SOS) Project. Individual NSAIDs and upper gastrointestinal complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (the SOS project). Drug safety. 2012 Dec 1:35(12):1127-46. doi: 10.2165/11633470-000000000-00000. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 23137151]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[45]

Hamlet A, Thoreson AC, Nilsson O, Svennerholm AM, Olbe L. Duodenal Helicobacter pylori infection differs in cagA genotype between asymptomatic subjects and patients with duodenal ulcers. Gastroenterology. 1999 Feb:116(2):259-68     [PubMed PMID: 9922305]

[46]

Stapfer M, Selby RR, Stain SC, Katkhouda N, Parekh D, Jabbour N, Garry D. Management of duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. Annals of surgery. 2000 Aug:232(2):191-8     [PubMed PMID: 10903596]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[47]

Di Saverio S, Bassi M, Smerieri N, Masetti M, Ferrara F, Fabbri C, Ansaloni L, Ghersi S, Serenari M, Coccolini F, Naidoo N, Sartelli M, Tugnoli G, Catena F, Cennamo V, Jovine E. Diagnosis and treatment of perforated or bleeding peptic ulcers: 2013 WSES position paper. World journal of emergency surgery : WJES. 2014:9():45. doi: 10.1186/1749-7922-9-45. Epub 2014 Aug 3     [PubMed PMID: 25114715]

[48]

Fakhry SM, Watts DD, Luchette FA, EAST Multi-Institutional Hollow Viscus Injury Research Group. Current diagnostic approaches lack sensitivity in the diagnosis of perforated blunt small bowel injury: analysis from 275,557 trauma admissions from the EAST multi-institutional HVI trial. The Journal of trauma. 2003 Feb:54(2):295-306     [PubMed PMID: 12579055]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[49]

Gu WJ, Wang F, Bakker J, Tang L, Liu JC. The effect of goal-directed therapy on mortality in patients with sepsis - earlier is better: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Critical care (London, England). 2014 Oct 20:18(5):570. doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0570-5. Epub 2014 Oct 20     [PubMed PMID: 25327977]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[50]

Grassi R, Romano S, Pinto A, Romano L. Gastro-duodenal perforations: conventional plain film, US and CT findings in 166 consecutive patients. European journal of radiology. 2004 Apr:50(1):30-6     [PubMed PMID: 15093233]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[51]

Ly JQ. The Rigler sign. Radiology. 2003 Sep:228(3):706-7     [PubMed PMID: 12954891]

[52]

Garbar V, Newton BW. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis: Falciform Ligament. StatPearls. 2024 Jan:():     [PubMed PMID: 30969680]

[53]

Kim HC, Yang DM, Kim SW, Park SJ. Gastrointestinal tract perforation: evaluation of MDCT according to perforation site and elapsed time. European radiology. 2014 Jun:24(6):1386-93. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3115-z. Epub 2014 Mar 13     [PubMed PMID: 24623365]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[54]

Donovan AJ, Berne TV, Donovan JA. Perforated duodenal ulcer: an alternative therapeutic plan. Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 1998 Nov:133(11):1166-71     [PubMed PMID: 9820345]

[55]

Kim SH, Shin SS, Jeong YY, Heo SH, Kim JW, Kang HK. Gastrointestinal tract perforation: MDCT findings according to the perforation sites. Korean journal of radiology. 2009 Jan-Feb:10(1):63-70. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2009.10.1.63. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 19182505]

[56]

Rahbour G, Siddiqui MR, Ullah MR, Gabe SM, Warusavitarne J, Vaizey CJ. A meta-analysis of outcomes following use of somatostatin and its analogues for the management of enterocutaneous fistulas. Annals of surgery. 2012 Dec:256(6):946-54. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318260aa26. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 22885696]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[57]

Berne TV, Donovan AJ. Nonoperative treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer. Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 1989 Jul:124(7):830-2     [PubMed PMID: 2742484]

[58]

Paspatis GA, Dumonceau JM, Barthet M, Meisner S, Repici A, Saunders BP, Vezakis A, Gonzalez JM, Turino SY, Tsiamoulos ZP, Fockens P, Hassan C. Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2014 Aug:46(8):693-711. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1377531. Epub 2014 Jul 21     [PubMed PMID: 25046348]

[59]

Pai D, Sharma A, Kanungo R, Jagdish S, Gupta A. Role of abdominal drains in perforated duodenal ulcer patients: a prospective controlled study. The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery. 1999 Mar:69(3):210-3     [PubMed PMID: 10075361]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[60]

Cogbill TH, Moore EE, Feliciano DV, Hoyt DB, Jurkovich GJ, Morris JA, Mucha P Jr, Ross SE, Strutt PJ, Moore FA. Conservative management of duodenal trauma: a multicenter perspective. The Journal of trauma. 1990 Dec:30(12):1469-75     [PubMed PMID: 2258957]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[61]

Boey J, Choi SK, Poon A, Alagaratnam TT. Risk stratification in perforated duodenal ulcers. A prospective validation of predictive factors. Annals of surgery. 1987 Jan:205(1):22-6     [PubMed PMID: 3800459]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[62]

Hermansson M, Staël von Holstein C, Zilling T. Surgical approach and prognostic factors after peptic ulcer perforation. The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica. 1999 Jun:165(6):566-72     [PubMed PMID: 10433141]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[63]

Rajesh V, Chandra SS, Smile SR. Risk factors predicting operative mortality in perforated peptic ulcer disease. Tropical gastroenterology : official journal of the Digestive Diseases Foundation. 2003 Jul-Sep:24(3):148-50     [PubMed PMID: 14978992]

[64]

Thorsen K, Søreide JA, Søreide K. Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine. 2013 Apr 10:21():25. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-21-25. Epub 2013 Apr 10     [PubMed PMID: 23574922]

[65]

Kocer B, Surmeli S, Solak C, Unal B, Bozkurt B, Yildirim O, Dolapci M, Cengiz O. Factors affecting mortality and morbidity in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2007 Apr:22(4):565-70     [PubMed PMID: 17376052]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[66]

Noguiera C, Silva AS, Santos JN, Silva AG, Ferreira J, Matos E, Vilaça H. Perforated peptic ulcer: main factors of morbidity and mortality. World journal of surgery. 2003 Jul:27(7):782-7     [PubMed PMID: 14509505]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[67]

Imhof M, Epstein S, Ohmann C, Röher HD. Duration of survival after peptic ulcer perforation. World journal of surgery. 2008 Mar:32(3):408-12. doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9370-2. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 18172710]

[68]

Sarosi GA Jr, Jaiswal KR, Nwariaku FE, Asolati M, Fleming JB, Anthony T. Surgical therapy of peptic ulcers in the 21st century: more common than you think. American journal of surgery. 2005 Nov:190(5):775-9     [PubMed PMID: 16226957]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[69]

Lee FY, Leung KL, Lai BS, Ng SS, Dexter S, Lau WY. Predicting mortality and morbidity of patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcers. Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 2001 Jan:136(1):90-4     [PubMed PMID: 11146785]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[70]

Sharma SS, Mamtani MR, Sharma MS, Kulkarni H. A prospective cohort study of postoperative complications in the management of perforated peptic ulcer. BMC surgery. 2006 Jun 16:6():8     [PubMed PMID: 16780583]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[71]

Gonenc M, Dural AC, Celik F, Akarsu C, Kocatas A, Kalayci MU, Dogan Y, Alis H. Enhanced postoperative recovery pathways in emergency surgery: a randomised controlled clinical trial. American journal of surgery. 2014 Jun:207(6):807-14. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.07.025. Epub 2013 Oct 10     [PubMed PMID: 24119887]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[72]

Wong CS, Chia CF, Lee HC, Wei PL, Ma HP, Tsai SH, Wu CH, Tam KW. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for prevention of ulcer recurrence after simple closure of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The Journal of surgical research. 2013 Jun 15:182(2):219-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.10.046. Epub 2012 Nov 9     [PubMed PMID: 23158404]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence