Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Management of the difficult duodenal stump in penetrating duodenal ulcer disease: a comparative analysis of duodenojejunostomy with “classical” stump closure (Nissen–Bsteh)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Duodenal stump insufficiency after surgery for penetrating gastroduodenal ulcer is associated with substantial mortality. “Classical” technique of closing a difficult duodenal stump (Nissen–Bsteh) has, up to now, not been compared with duodenojejunostomy (DJ) in larger patient sets. This also refers to the potential benefit of a gastric and biliary diversion under such conditions. The aim of the present study was to compare classical duodenal closure (CC) with DJ and to evaluate the impact of gastric and biliary diversion on postoperative outcome after surgery for penetrating, high-risk duodenal ulcer in a matched control study.

Methods

Out of 321 patients, treated for penetrating duodenal ulcer disease, the perioperative outcome of 62 DJ patients was compared with 62 patients undergoing CC matched for age, gender, biliary diversion, and the operating surgeon collective. A total of 70 patients, equally distributed between DJ and CC subsets, received temporary biliary diversion.

Results

Overall perioperative mortality was 10.5 %. However, DJ significantly reduced the mortality rate (4.8 %) associated with penetrating duodenal ulcer compared to CC (16.1 %, P < 0.04). The overall morbidity in DJ patients nearly equalled that in the CC group (P = 0.4). Differences in the prevalence of duodenal leakage rate between DJ (14.5 %) and CC (29 %) patients were of borderline significance (P = 0.05). Temporary biliary diversion was identified as a prognostic factor for closure consistency with lower duodenal leakage rates in both DJ (odds ratio 0.05, 95 % confidence interval 0.005–0.42) and CC patients (odds ratio 0.2, 95 % confidence interval 0.05–0.6). In contrast, gastric diversion performed in a subset of 35 DJ patients had no protective effect.

Conclusion

Duodenojejunostomy combined with temporary biliary diversion substantially improves perioperative outcome in management of penetrating duodenal ulcer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Garcia Rodriguez LA, Hernandez-Diaz S (2004) Risk of uncomplicated peptic ulcer among users of aspirin and nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Am J Epidemiol 159(1):23–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lassen A, Hallas J, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB (2006) Complicated and uncomplicated peptic ulcers in a Danish county 1993-2002: a population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 101(5):945–953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Forbes GM et al (1994) Duodenal ulcer treated with Helicobacter pylori eradication: seven-year follow-up. Lancet 343(8892):258–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schubert ML, Peura DA (2008) Control of gastric acid secretion in health and disease. Gastroenterology 134(7):1842–1860

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheung FK, Lau JY (2009) Management of massive peptic ulcer bleeding. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 38(2):231–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barkun AN et al (2009) Endoscopic hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding for patients with high-risk lesions: a series of meta-analyses. Gastrointest Endosc 69(4):786–799

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Martin RF (2005) Surgical management of ulcer disease. Surg Clin North Am 85(5):907–929, vi

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tsuei BJ, Schwartz RW (2004) Management of the difficult duodenum. Curr Surg 61(2):166–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zittel TT, Jehle EC, Becker HD (2000) Surgical management of peptic ulcer disease today—indication, technique and outcome. Langenbecks Arch Surg 385(2):84–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang, Y.R., J.E. Richter, and D.T. Dempsey, Trends and outcomes of hospitalizations for peptic ulcer disease in the United States, 1993 to 2006. Ann Surg. 251(1): p. 51–8

  11. Svanes C et al (1993) Perforated peptic ulcer over 56years. Time trends in patients and disease characteristics. Gut 34(12):1666–1671

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Moller MH et al (2009) Perforated peptic ulcer: how to improve outcome? Scand J Gastroenterol 44(1):15–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moller, M.H., et al., Preoperative prognostic factors for mortality in peptic ulcer perforation: a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol. 45(7-8): p. 785–805

  14. Makela JT et al (2002) Factors that predict morbidity and mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcers. Eur J Surg 168(8–9):446–451

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee FY et al (2001) Predicting mortality and morbidity of patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcers. Arch Surg 136(1):90–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kujath P, Schwandner O, Bruch HP (2002) Morbidity and mortality of perforated peptic gastroduodenal ulcer following emergency surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 387(7–8):298–302

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Evans JP, Smith R (1997) Predicting poor outcome in perforated peptic ulcer disease. Aust N Z J Surg 67(11):792–795

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boey J et al (1987) Risk stratification in perforated duodenal ulcers. A prospective validation of predictive factors. Ann Surg 205(1):22–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Behrman SW (2005) Management of complicated peptic ulcer disease. Arch Surg 140(2):201–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Millat B, Fingerhut A, Borie F (2000) Surgical treatment of complicated duodenal ulcers: controlled trials. World J Surg 24(3):299–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schein M (2009) Technique of antroduodenectomy without ulcer excision as a safe alternative treatment for bleeding chronic duodenal ulcers. World J Surg 33(9):1978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Newton EB, Versland MR, Sepe TE (2008) Giant duodenal ulcers. World J Gastroenterol 14(32):4995–4999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lal P, Vindal A, Hadke NS (2009) Controlled tube duodenostomy in the management of giant duodenal ulcer perforation: a new technique for a surgically challenging condition. Am J Surg 198(3):319–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hermansson M, Stael von Holstein C, Zilling T (1999) Surgical approach and prognostic factors after peptic ulcer perforation. Eur J Surg 165(6):566–572

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cooper G, Bell G (1982) Combined antrectomy and Roux-en-Y anastomosis in the surgical treatment of recurrent peptic ulceration. Br J Surg 69(11):646–650

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nissen R (1965) Treatment of Ulcer Perforation. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 90:487–488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Nissen R (1933) Zur Resektion des tiefsitzenden duodenal Geschwürs. Zewntralbl Chir 60:487–488

    Google Scholar 

  28. O., B., Um die Sicherheit des Duodenalstumpfes. Zbl Chir, 1968. 93: p. 633–639

  29. Cellan-Jones CJ (1929) A rapid method of treatment in perforated duodenal ulcer. Br Med J 1(3571):1076–1077

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Yasargil, E.C., [Contribution to the technic of securing the duodenal stump.]. Langenbecks Arch Klin Chir Ver Dtsch Z Chir, 1964. 307: p. 298–302

  31. Yasargil EC (1965) Method of securing the duodenal stump. Am J Surg 109:828–829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Link BC et al (2007) Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage as rescue therapy for symptomatic biliary leakage without biliary tract dilation after major surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 11(2):166–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Malfertheiner, P., F.K. Chan, and K.E. McColl, Peptic ulcer disease. Lancet, 2009

  34. Choung RS, Talley NJ (2008) Epidemiology and clinical presentation of stress-related peptic damage and chronic peptic ulcer. Curr Mol Med 8(4):253–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Leontiadis GI, Howden CW (2009) The role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 38(2):199–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Napolitano L (2009) Refractory peptic ulcer disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 38(2):267–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Elashoff JD et al (1983) Long-term follow-up of duodenal ulcer patients. J Clin Gastroenterol 5(6):509–515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ohmann C, Imhof M, Roher HD (2000) Trends in peptic ulcer bleeding and surgical treatment. World J Surg 24(3):284–293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sommer, T., H. Elbroend, and H. Friis-Andersen, Laparoscopic repair of perforated ulcer in Western Denmark—a retrospective study. Scand J Surg. 99(3): p. 119–21

  40. Moller MH et al (2009) Risk factors in patients surgically treated for peptic ulcer perforation. Scand J Gastroenterol 44(2):145–152, 2 p following 152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Moller MH et al (2009) Preoperative delay in patients with peptic ulcer perforation: a clinical audit from the Danish National Indicator Project. Ugeskr Laeger 171(49):3605–3610

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kocer B et al (2007) Factors affecting mortality and morbidity in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 22(4):565–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Blomgren LG (1997) Perforated peptic ulcer: long-term results after simple closure in the elderly. World J Surg 21(4):412–414, discussion 414–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Wu X et al (2002) A modified surgical technique for the emergent treatment of giant ulcers concomitant with hemorrhage in the posterior wall of the duodenal bulb. Am J Surg 184(1):41–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tsugawa K et al (2001) The therapeutic strategies in performing emergency surgery for gastroduodenal ulcer perforation in 130 patients over 70years of age. Hepatogastroenterology 48(37):156–162

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Rathi P, Parikh S, Kalro RH (1996) Giant duodenal ulcer: a new look at a variant of a common illness. Indian J Gastroenterol 15(1):33–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Jani K, Saxena AK, Vaghasia R (2006) Omental plugging for large-sized duodenal peptic perforations: a prospective randomized study of 100 patients. South Med J 99(5):467–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Gupta S et al (2005) The management of large perforations of duodenal ulcers. BMC Surg 5:15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ahsberg, K., et al., Hospitalisation of and mortality from bleeding peptic ulcer in Sweden: a nationwide time-trend analysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 33(5): p. 578–84

  50. Frandsen PJ, Jarnum S, Malmstrom J (1980) Crohn's disease of the duodenum. Scand J Gastroenterol 15(6):683–688

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Yamamoto T et al (1999) Outcome of strictureplasty for duodenal Crohn's disease. Br J Surg 86(2):259–262

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Dalla Vecchia LK et al (1998) Intestinal atresia and stenosis: a 25-year experience with 277 cases. Arch Surg 133(5):490–496, discussion 496–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Eisenberger CF et al (1998) Strictureplasty with a pedunculated jejunal patch in Crohn's disease of the duodenum. Am J Gastroenterol 93(2):267–269

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Gingrich GW, Haynes CD, Thoroughman JC (1963) Use of the T-tube in difficult duodenal stump closures: report of 77 cases. Am Surg 29:803–810

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Hermann RE (1973) T tube catheter drainage of the duodenal stump. Am J Surg 125(3):364–366

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Smith BB (1972) Catheter duodenostomy and total gastrectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 134(1):102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Jones RC et al (1967) Difficult closures of the duodenal stump. Arch Surg 94(5):696–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Griffen WO Jr (1973) Whither goest the duodenal stump blowout? Arch Surg 107(1):11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Yogesh K. Vashist, Emre F. Yekebas, Florian Gebauer, Michael Tachezy, Kai Bachmann, Alexandra König, Asad Kutup & Jakob R. Izbicki

Authors
  1. Yogesh K. Vashist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emre F. Yekebas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florian Gebauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Tachezy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kai Bachmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexandra König
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Asad Kutup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jakob R. Izbicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jakob R. Izbicki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vashist, Y.K., Yekebas, E.F., Gebauer, F. et al. Management of the difficult duodenal stump in penetrating duodenal ulcer disease: a comparative analysis of duodenojejunostomy with “classical” stump closure (Nissen–Bsteh). Langenbecks Arch Surg 397, 1243–1249 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-0990-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-0990-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation