Skip to main content

The importance of antenatal diagnosis of congenital duodenal obstruction

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of operated newborns that had an antenatal diagnosis of congenital duodenal obstruction (CDO) with those who had a late diagnosis in the postpartum period.

Materials and methods

The newborns that were operated with the diagnosis of CDO in our department were retrospectively recorded. The patients were grouped according to the time of diagnosis; the ones who had an antenatal diagnosis were assigned to group 1, while the ones that had a diagnosis in the postpartum period were assigned to group 2. The groups were compared in terms of their pregnancy weeks at the time of birth, birth weight, additional congenital anomalies, the type of obstruction, the procedures that are applied, the day of operation, the time for oral feeding tolerance, the duration of hospital stay, and pre- and post-operative complications.

Results

Fifteen patients with a diagnosis of CDO were operated on in our department between 2009 and 2014. Eight patients were male and seven patients were female. There were nine patients in group 1 and six patients in group 2. The diagnosis was confirmed in group 1 on the first day of the postpartum period. In the subanalysis, five patients had type 1 CDO and four had type 3 CDO in group 1, while five patients had type 1 CDO and one had type 3 CDO in group 2. There was not any complication in group 1 in the pre-operative period, but two patients had aspiration pneumonia and one had dehydration in group 2 pre-operatively. The mean operation day in the postpartum period was 2.34 (±0.5) days in group 1 and 7.17 (±2.04) in group 2. The time for the patient to tolerate oral feeding in the post-operative period was 11.33 (±1.80) in group 1 and 14.83 (±2.48) in group 2. The duration of hospital stay in group 1 was 20.67 (±9.81) days and 24.66 (±4.50) days in group 2. In the post-operative period, chylous ascites occured in a patient in group 1 and the post-operative period was complicated with ileus in one patient in group 2. No mortalities happened in both groups.

Conclusion

The prenatal diagnosis of CDO affects the pre-operative complication rate, the time for the operation in the postpartum period, the duration to start post-operative oral feeding, and the duration of hospital stay, but does not affect the mortality or the morbidity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Bittencourt DG, Barini R, Marba S, Sbragia L (2004) Congenital duodenal obstruction: does prenatal diagnosis improve the outcome? Pediatr Surg Int 20:582–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fonkalsrud EW (1979) Duodenal atresia or stenosis. In: Bergsma D (ed) Birth defects compendium. Liss, New York, p 350

    Google Scholar 

  3. Safra MJ, Oakley GP, Erikson JD (1976) Descriptive epidemiology of small bowel. Teratology 14(2):143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Adolph GS, John DC (1929) Congenital duodenal stenosis and atresia. Am J Dis Child 37(4):818–831

    Google Scholar 

  5. Romero R, Ghidini A, Costigan K et al (1988) Prenatal diagnosis of duodenal atresia: does it make any difference? Obstet Gynaecol 71:739–741

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Reid IS (1973) Biliary tract abnormalities associated with duodenal atresia. Arch Dis Child 48(12):952–957

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ladd WE (1937) Congenital duodenal obstruction. Surgery 1:878–885

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tandler J (1902) Zurentwicklunggeschicte des menschlichen duodenums. MorpholJb 29:187–216

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schnaufer L (1986) Duodenal atresia, stenosis and annular pancreas. In: Welch RJ, Randolph JG, Ravitch MM et al (eds) Pediatric surgery. Year Book, Chicago, pp 929–937

    Google Scholar 

  10. Takeshita T, Nomura Y, Nakamura Y (1982) Antenatal diagnosis of duodenal atresia using ultrasonic scanning. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol 8(3):269–273

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Petrikovsky BM (1994) First-trimester diagnosis of duodenal atresia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 171(2):569–570

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hancock BJ, Wiseman NE (1989) Congenital duodenal obstruction: the impact of an antenatal diagnosis. J Pediatr Surg 24(10):1027–1031

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Choudhry MS, Rahman N, Boyd P, Lakhoo K (2009) Duodenal atresia: associated anomalies, prenatal diagnosis and outcome. Pediatr Surg Int 25(8):727–730

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kurdoğlu M, Melek M, Edirne YE, Küçükaydın Z, Yıldızhan R, Adalı E, Kolusarı A, Kamacı M (2010) Duodenal Atrezinin Prenatal Ultrasonografik Tanısı. Van Tıp Dergisi 17(1):16–18

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kaldor J (1929) Atresia of the duodenum and duodenal diverticula. Ann Surg 89(1):6–11

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bishay M, Lakshminarayanan B, Arnaud A, Garriboli M, Cross KM, Curry JI, Drake D, Kiely EM, De Coppi P, Pierro A, Eaton S (2013) The role of parenteral nutrition following surgery for duodenal atresia or stenosis. Pediatr Surg Int 29(2):191–195

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Githu T, Merrow AC, Lee JK, Garrison AP, Brown RL (2014) Fetal MRI of hereditary multiple intestinal atresia with postnatal correlation. Pediatr Radiol 44(3):349–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Latzman JM, Levin TL, Nafday SM (2014) Duodenal atresia: not always a double bubble. Pediatr Radiol 44(8):1031–1034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pariente G, Landau D, Aviram M, Hershkovitz R (2012) Prenatal diagnosis of a rare sonographic appearance of duodenal atresia: report of 2 cases and literature review. J Ultrasound Med 31(11):1829–1833

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Grosfeld JL, Rescorla FJ (1993) Duodenal atresia and stenosis: reassessment of treatment and outcome based on antenatal diagnosis, pathologic variance, and long term follow-up. World J Surg 17:301–309

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Akhtar J, Guiney EJ (1992) Congenital duodenal obstruction. Br J Surg 79:133–135

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mooney D, Lewis JE, Connors RH et al (1997) Newborn duodenal atresia: an improving outlook. Am J Surg 153:347–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Murshed R, Nicholls G, Spitz L (1999) Intrinsic duodenal obstruction: trends in management and outcome over 45 years (1951–1995) with relevance to prenatal counseling. Br J ObstetGynaecol 106:1197–1199

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Savran.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Savran, B., Adigüzel, Ü., Yüksel, K.B. et al. The importance of antenatal diagnosis of congenital duodenal obstruction. Ir J Med Sci 185, 695–698 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1345-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1345-y

Keywords

  • Congenital duodenal obstruction
  • Prenatal diagnosis
  • Double bubble