Review of duodenal perforations after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in Hospital Puerta de Hierro from 1999 to 2014

Introduction: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the gold standard in biliary and pancreatic pathology. Although the procedure has a significant morbidity and mortality rate. Algorithms are needed for the management and treatment of the associated complications. Objective: to review the post-ERCP perforations treated in the Department of General Surgery of the Hospital Puerta de Hierro from 1999 to 2014. The results were evaluated according to the types of perforation and treatment. Methods and results: this is a descriptive and observational study of all post-ERCP perforations reported and treated by the Department of General Surgery of the Hospital Puerta de Hierro from 1999 to 2014. The following data were collected: indication for the test and findings, type of perforation, time and method of diagnosis, time to surgery and the technique used; the subsequent complications as well as the evolution and time of admission were registered. Results were evaluated according to the type of perforation (Stapfer classification) and the treatment performed. Thirty-six perforations were reported (21 type I, eight type II, two type III and five type IV), with an associated incidence of less than 1%. The diagnosis was immediate (in the first 24 hours) in 67% of cases; type I was the most frequent: 28 of 36 patients (77.7%) required surgery. The majority underwent a cholecystectomy followed by suture, intraoperative cholangiography, bile duct exploration and drainage whenever possible. Four patients died with type I perforations; two were intervened and two were managed conservatively. The most frequent complication was a collection/fistula which occurred in 21.42% of patients who underwent surgery. Conclusions: periduodenal perforations secondary to ERCP treatment should be oriented according to the clinical and radiological findings. In our experience, type I perforations require immediate surgical intervention, whereas type II and III perforations can be managed conservatively in some cases when there are no complications such as associated abdominal collections, peritoneal irritation and/or sepsis. Type IV perforations respond to conservative management.