Clinical course and proposed treatment strategy for ERCP-related duodenal perforation: a multicenter analysis

Management of iatrogenic perforations during endoscopic interventions in the hepato-pancreatico-biliary tract

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided interventions are among the most challenging procedures performed by interventional endoscopists and are associated with a significant risk of complications. Early recognition and classification of perforations allows immediate therapy which improves clinical outcomes. In this article we review the different aspects of iatrogenic perforations associated with pancreatico-biliary interventions, elucidating risk factors, diagnostic challenges and the latest therapeutic interventions.

Evaluation of ERCP-related perforation: a single-center retrospective study

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related perforation is a rare and serious adverse event. The aim of our study was to evaluate the risk factors and management of ERCP-related perforation, and to further determine the predictive factors associated with perforation outcome.

Methods

A total of 27,018 ERCP procedures performed at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University (Nanchang, China) between January 2007 and March 2022 were included in the investigation of ERCP-related perforation. Medical records and endoscopic data were extracted to analyse the risk factors, management, and clinical outcome of ERCP-related perforation.

Results

Seventy-six patients (0.28%) were identified as having experienced perforation following ERCP. Advanced age, Billroth II anatomy, precut sphincterotomy, and papillary balloon dilatation were significantly associated with ERCP-related perforation. Most patients with perforation (n = 65) were recognized immediately during ERCP whereas 11 were recognized later on. The delay in recognition primarily resulted from stent migration (n = 9). In addition, 12 patients experienced poor clinical outcome including death or hospice discharge (n = 3), ICU admission for >3 days (n = 6), and prolonged hospital stay for >1 month due to perforation (n = 3). Cancer and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) are associated with a higher risk of poor outcome.

Conclusions

Advanced age, Billroth II anatomy, precut sphincterotomy, and balloon dilation increase the risk of ERCP-related perforation whereas cancer and SIRS independently predicted poor clinical outcome.

Shahwan S, Al-qaoud D, Fataftah J. ERCP-induced perforation: review and revisit after half a century

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an invasive procedure. We aimed to investigate ERCP-induced perforations at our institution and conduct a comprehensive review of literature on ERCP-induced perforations (EIP) since the introduction of this procedure as a therapeutic intervention.

Methods

This was a case-control study, in which charts of all patients diagnosed with ERCP-induced duodenal perforation were reviewed and compared to a control group without perforation. Patient's sociodemographic and clinical data, including ERCP procedure-related data, were gathered.

Results

A total of 996 ERCP procedures were performed; only 13 patients proved to have EIP. Obstructive jaundice was the most common indication for ERCP. The main predisposing factor was difficult cannulation (P = 0.003). In total, five patients required surgical treatment; the majority of them had type I perforation, whereas type IV was the most common in patients who were treated conservatively. The overall mortality rate was 15%, the surgical group had a slightly higher mortality rate.

Conclusions

Fifty years after the introduction of ERCP for therapy, it remains an invasive procedure that carries significant morbidity and mortality, even in skilled hands or at high- volume units. Conservative management of perforation yields favorable outcomes in selected patients.

Clinical analysis of 45 cases of perforation were identified during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become an important method to diagnose and treat biliary-pancreatic diseases. Perforations are infrequent but serious complications can occur during ERCPs. However, it is unclear which patients are suitable for surgery and when these patients should receive surgery.

Aim

To analyze the outcome of 45 patients with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) related perforation.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed all 45 patients with ERCP-related perforation between January 2003 and December 2017, and observed the location and causes of perforation, treatment strategies, and mortality.

Results

Twenty thousand four hundred and seventy-nine patients received ERCP procedures from January 2003 to December 2017 in our digestive endoscopy center. Forty-five patients suffered from ERCP-related perforations. The incidence rate of ERCP-related perforations was 0.22%. Twenty-six patients suffered from periampullary perforations, 15 patients suffered from duodenal wall perforations, 1 patient suffered from a fundus perforation, 1 patient suffered from a residual gallbladder duct perforation, 1 patient suffered from a papillary diverticulum perforation, and 1 patient suffered from an intrahepatic bile duct perforation. Six patients with duodenal perforations underwent surgery, and the other patients received conservative treatment. One patient with a duodenal perforation and ERCP-related pancreatitis died of heart failure, and all the other patients recovered. The mortality rate was 2.2%.

Conclusion

Endoscopic closure is seen as the first method for treating Stapfer type I perforations in the early phase, and surgery is seen as a remedial method when local treatment was failed. The Stapfer type II to type IV perforations can recover by conservative treatment.

Classification und Treatment Algorithm of Small Bowel Perforations Based on a Ten-Year Retrospective Analysis

Background: Small bowel perforations are a rare diagnosis compared with esophageal, gastric, and colonic perforations. However, small bowel perforations can be fatal if left untreated. A classification of small bowel perforations or treatment recommendations do not exist to date. Methods: A retrospective, monocentric, code-related data analysis of patients with small bowel perforations was performed for the period of 2010 to 2019. Results: Over a 10-year period, 267 cases of small bowel perforation in 257 patients (50.2% male and 49.8% female; mean age of 60.28 years) were documented. Perforation’s localization was 5% duodenal, 38% jejunal, 39% ileal, and 18% undocumented. Eight etiologies were differentiated: iatrogenic (41.9%), ischemic (20.6%), malignant (18.9%), inflammatory (8.2%), diverticula-associated (4.5%), traumatic (4.5%), foreign-body-associated (1.9%), and cryptical (1.5%) perforations. Operative treatment combined with antibiotics was the most commonly used therapeutic approach (94.3%). The mortality rate was 14.23%, with highest rate for patients with ischemic perforations. Discussion: An algorithm for diagnostic and therapeutic steps was established. Furthermore, it was found that small bowel perforations are rare events with poor outcomes. Time to diagnosis and grade of underlying disease are the most essential parameters to predict perforation-associated complications.

Fully covered self-expandable metal stent for intraprocedural or late-diagnosed Type-II endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforations

Background

Perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare but life-threatening complications. The treatment of Type-II-periampullary perforations that develop during endoscopic sphincterotomy remains a topic of discussion. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of fully covered self-expanding metal stenting (FCSEMS) for treating Type-II perforations.

Methods

The files of all patients who underwent the ERCP procedures between January 2015 and October 2021 were retrospectively reviewed; patients with Stapher Type-II perforation were included in the current study. Patients with FCSEMS were classified into two groups: those who underwent FCSEMS and those who were conventionally followed up. Moreover, patients with FCSEMS were classified into two subgroups: those who underwent simultaneous stenting and those who underwent late stenting. Mortality, surgical intervention, percutaneous drainage, length of hospital stay, and inflammatory markers were all compared between the groups.

Results

Of the 9253 patients undergoing ERCP during the study period, 28 patients (0.3%) were found to have Type-II perforation. The mean age of these patients was 67.7 ± 3.9 years, and 15 patients were female. FCSEMS was performed on 19 patients, whereas 9 patients were on conventional follow-up. None of the patients developed mortality. In the conventional follow-up group, one patient required percutaneous drainage and one required surgical intervention. In contrast, none of the patients in the FCSEMS group required additional intervention. At a statistically significant level, the length of hospital stay was found to be shorter in the FCSEMS group. There was no difference in inflammatory markers between the two groups. In nine patients, FCSEMS was performed simultaneously, whereas, in ten patients, FCSEMS was performed later because they required a second intervention. These two subgroups did not differ in terms of outcomes.

Conclusions

FCSEMS is a safe and effective treatment modality for patients with Type-II perforation. Moreover, it can be safely used in patients whose perforations are diagnosed during the ERCP procedure and in patients whose diagnoses are made after the procedure.

A Novel Cause of Biliary Peritonitis after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Case Report and Literature Review

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can lead to several complications such as duodenal or bile duct perforation. The incidence of pneumoperitoneum post-ERCP is rarely seen (<1%) and is associated with perforations of the duodenum or common bile duct in therapeutic ERCP after sphincterotomy. In this case, we disclose a novel cause of biliary peritonitis after ERCP. Case Presentation. A 65-year-old man presented with abdominal pain and distended abdomen after uneventful ERCP with sphincterotomy. An abdominal computed tomography (CT) was performed whose finding indicated duodenal perforation. The patient was rushed to an emergency laparotomy where only a rupture of an otherwise normal subcapsular intrahepatic bile duct was found. The surrounding liver parenchyma was healthy. The cause of this condition was probably post-ERCP pneumobilia and the increase of pressure in the biliary tract.

Conclusions

This is the first case in literature describing the rupture of a subcapsular healthy bile duct as cause of biliary peritonitis after ERCP. This case also suggests that in the management of post-ERCP complications, the cooperation of radiologists and surgeons is vital for the patient's wellbeing.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Management of Perforations in Gastrointestinal Tract: Expert Review

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all procedures, especially procedures carrying an increased risk for perforation, a thorough discussion between the endoscopist and the patient (preferably together with the patient's family) should include details of the procedural techniques and risks involved. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: The area of perforation should be kept clean to prevent any spillage of gastrointestinal contents into the perforation by aspirating liquids and, if necessary, changing the patient position to bring the perforation into a non-dependent location while minimizing insufflation of carbon dioxide to avoid compartment syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Use of carbon dioxide for insufflation is encouraged for all endoscopic procedures, especially any endoscopic procedure with increased risk of perforation. If available, carbon dioxide should be used for all endoscopic procedures. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: All endoscopists should be aware of the procedures that carry an increased risk for perforation such as any dilation, foreign body removal, any per oral endoscopic myotomy (Zenker's, esophageal, pyloric), stricture incision, thermal coagulation for hemostasis or tumor ablation, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, ampullectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoluminal stenting with self-expanding metal stent (SEMS), full-thickness endoscopic resection, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in surgically altered anatomy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary and pancreatic access, EUS-guided cystogastrostomy, and endoscopic gastroenterostomy using a lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Urgent surgical consultation should be highly considered in all cases with perforation even when endoscopic repair is technically successful. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For all upper gastrointestinal perforations, the patient should be considered to be admitted for observation, receive intravenous fluids, be kept nothing by mouth, receive broad-spectrum antibiotics (to cover Gram-negative and anaerobic organisms), nasogastric tube (NGT) placement (albeit some exceptions), and surgical consultation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For upper gastrointestinal tract perforations, a water-soluble upper gastrointestinal series should be considered to confirm the absence of continuing leak at the perforation site before initiating a clear liquid diet. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopic closure of esophageal perforations should be pursued when feasible, utilizing through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) or over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) for perforations <2 cm and endoscopic suturing for perforations >2 cm, reserving esophageal stenting with SEMS for cases where primary closure is not possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopic closure of gastric perforations should be pursued when feasible, utilizing TTSCs or OTSCs for perforations <2 cm and endoscopic suturing or combination of TTSCs and endoloop for perforations >2 cm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: For large type 1 duodenal perforations (lateral duodenal wall tear >3 cm), being cognizant of the difficulty in closing them endoscopically, urgent surgical consultation should be made while the feasibility of endoscopic closure is assessed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Because type 2 periampullary (retroperitoneal) perforations are subtle and can be easily missed, the endoscopist should carefully assess the gas pattern on fluoroscopy to avoid delays in treatment and request a computed tomography scan if there is a concern for such a perforation; identified perforations of this type at the time of ERCP may be closed with TTSCs if feasible and/or by placing a fully covered SEMS into the bile duct across the ampulla. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For the management of large duodenal polyps, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should only be performed by experienced endoscopists and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) only by experts because both EMR and ESD in the duodenum require proficiency in resection and mucosal defect closure techniques to manage immediate and/or delayed perforations (caused by the proteolytic enzymes of the pancreas). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Endoscopists should be aware that colon perforations occurring during diagnostic colonoscopy are most commonly located in the sigmoid colon due to direct trauma from forceful advancement of the colonoscope. Such tears recognized at the time of colonoscopy may be closed by TTSCs or OTSCs if the bowel preparation is good and the patient is stable. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Although colon perforation is responsive to various endoscopic tools such as TTSC, OTSC, and endoscopic suturing, perforations in the right colon, especially in the cecum, have been relegated to using only TTSCs because of inability to reach the site of the perforation with an endoscopic suturing device or OTSC if the colon is tortuous or unclean. Recently a new suture-based device for defect closure has been introduced allowing deep submucosal and intramuscular enhanced fixation through a standard gastroscope or colonoscope. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: Patients with perforations who are hemodynamically unstable or who have suffered a delayed perforation with peritoneal signs or frank peritonitis should be surgically managed without any attempt at endoscopic closure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 16: In any adverse event including perforation, it is paramount to ensure accurate documentation, prompt discussion with the patient and family, and swift reporting to the quality officer (or equivalent) and risk management team of the institution (in major adverse events).

A rare case of duodenum perforation after biliary stenting under endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a case report

Duodenal injury under endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is extremely rare. This study describes a case of duodenum perforation after biliary stenting under ERCP for the first time. A 67-year-old female patient was transferred to the emergency department of First Hospital of China Medical University after experiencing whole abdominal pain for 6 hours. The patient had received a biliary stent placement under ERCP at an outer hospital 6 days previously due to duodenal papillary occupy. During the operation, a small perforation caused by a biliary stent was found at the lateral side of the duodenum, but no biliary stent was found. Duodenal juice was flowing out from the perforation, Then, the perforation was opened obliquely, and an 8-cm portion of the biliary stent was removed. Gastrostomy, jejunostomy, and choledochotomy T-tube drainage procedures were subsequently performed. The patient recovered well and was discharged with the T-tube and the jejunal nutrition tube after 20 days. Four types of perforation under ERCP have been reported in previous literature, and this case report documents a rare complication from biliary stenting under ERCP. This case is different from the previous four types and can be called type V, which give general endoscopic doctors a serious warning.

Recent advances in prevention and management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related duodenal perforation

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the main diagnosis and treatment for biliary and pancreatic diseases; however, ERCP requires a high level of technical skill and experience, and there is always a risk of complications. ERCP-related duodenal perforation is one of the most serious complications of ERCP, and although the incidence rate is relatively low, the mortality rate is high. Recently, the introduction of new classification methods and the development of endoscopic technology and equipment have made endoscopic therapy a new trend. This may change the management strategy of perforation. Therefore, we reviewed the latest developments in endoscopic management, surgical management, and conservative internal medicine management. In addition to introducing many new endoscope treatment methods, we also discussed the timing of interventions, the progress of endoscope and surgical indications, and corresponding prevention strategies. We aim to retrospectively analyse these treatment modalities to propose appropriate solutions to improve dynamic clinical therapy.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020

1:  ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3:  ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Fully Covered Self-Expandable Metal Stens eliminate surgical repair requirement in both endoscopic sphincterotomy and precut sphincterotomy-related perforation (with video)

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related perforations occur in 0.3-0.6% of patients. The treatment of retroperitoneal paravaterian perforations (type II), which develop during endoscopic sphincterotomy or precut sphincterotomy, remains a matter of debate. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of fully covered self expandable metal stent (Fc-SEMS) placement in the treatment of type II perforations.

METHODS

The study was conducted in a tertiary ERCP reference center of Turkey between December 2013 and June 2016. Patients with type II ERCP-related perforation constituted the study group. Type II perforations were treated by insertion of an Fc-SEMS (10 mm × 60 mm) during the ERCP procedure or intraoperatively by surgery-endoscopy rendezvous technique, if biliary cannulation could not be achieved.

RESULTS

A total of 2689 ERCPs were performed. ERCP-related perforation was observed in 12 procedures (0.4%). Eight patients had Stapfer type II perforations, which developed during endoscopic sphincterotomy in seven patients and precut sphincterotomy in one patient. Fc-SEMSs were inserted during the ERCP procedure in seven patients and intraoperatively by surgery-endoscopy rendezvous technique in one patient. None of the patients developed fever, hemodynamic instability, or peritoneal signs. Stents were removed after a median duration of 9 (3-14) days. All of the patients were uneventfully discharged after an average hospital length of stay of median 5 (1-9) days.

CONCLUSION

Fc-SEMSs are highly effective in the nonoperative treatment of type II perforations and their intraoperative insertion in patients with unsuccessful cannulation may facilitate surgery by eliminating the need for duodenum repair surgery.

Risk factors for postoperative sepsis in patients with gastrointestinal perforation

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is fatal in patients with gastrointestinal perforation (GIP). However, few studies have focused on this issue.

AIM

To investigate the risk factors for postoperative sepsis in patients with GIP.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study performed at the Department of General Surgery in our treatment center. From January 2016 to December 2018, the medical records of patients with GIP who underwent emergency surgery were reviewed. Patients younger than 17 years or who did not undergo surgical treatment were excluded. The patients were divided into the postoperative sepsis group and the non-postoperative sepsis group. Clinical data for both groups were collected and compared, and the risk factors for postoperative sepsis were investigated. The institutional ethical committee of our hospital approved the study.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-six patients were admitted to our department with GIP. Fourteen patients were excluded: Four were under 17 years old, and 10 did not undergo emergency surgery due to high surgical risk and/or disagreement with the patients and their family members. Two hundred twelve patients were finally enrolled in the study; 161 were men, and 51 were women. The average age was 62.98 ± 15.65 years. Postoperative sepsis occurred in 48 cases. The prevalence of postoperative sepsis was 22.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 17.0%-28.3%]. Twenty-eight patients (13.21%) died after emergency surgery. Multiple logistic regression analysis confirmed that the time interval from abdominal pain to emergency surgery [odds ratio (OR) = 1.021, 95%CI: 1.005-1.038, P = 0.006], colonic perforation (OR = 2.761, CI: 1.821–14.776, P = 0.007), perforation diameter (OR = 1.062, 95%CI: 1.007-1.121, P = 0.027), and incidence of malignant tumor-related perforation (OR = 5.384, 95%CI: 1.762-32.844, P = 0.021) were associated with postoperative sepsis.

CONCLUSION

The time interval from abdominal pain to surgery, colonic perforation, diameter of perforation, and the incidence of malignant tumor-related perforation were risk factors for postoperative sepsis in patients with GIP.

Computed tomography classification of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforation

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related perforation leads to high morbidity and mortality. The Stapfer classification divides patients with different perforation locations and suggests management accordingly. The classification may be unknown if perforation is not detected during endoscopy. We classified patients with ERCP-related perforation (ERP) through computed tomography (CT) and observed the clinical outcomes with varyingly invasive management. Fifty-two cases of ERP between July 2009 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Of them, 41 who underwent CT for ERCP were included. According to their CT findings, we divided patients into air-alone (n = 16), air-fluid (n = 18), and fluid-alone (n = 7) groups. Perforation severity was graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification for surgical complications. Demographic data and clinical outcomes among different groups were analyzed. Fifteen patients (37%) had an unknown Stapfer classification. More than half of the patients in the air-fluid group had a Clavien-Dindo complication grade of >3. Four patients underwent surgical repair; all of them were from the air-fluid group. All patients in the air- and fluid-alone groups underwent medical treatment without need for subsequent salvage surgery. The air-fluid group had the longest mean hospital stay (25.1 ± 21.9 days) and the exclusive two mortality cases in this study. Patients with ERCP can be divided into groups with different outcomes according to the presence of air or fluid on CT images. Because patients with both air and fluid have the worst clinical outcome, they may require more aggressive treatment than patients with either air or fluid alone.

ERCP-related perforations: a population-based study of incidence, mortality, and risk factors

Background

Perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare but feared adverse events with highly reported morbidity and mortality rates. The aim was to evaluate the incidence and outcome of ERCP-related perforations and to identify risk factors for death due to perforations in a population-based study.

Methods

Between May 2005 and December 2013, a total of 52,140 ERCPs were registered in GallRiks, a Swedish nationwide, population-based registry. A total of 376 (0.72%) were registered as perforations or extravasation of contrast during ERCP or as perforation in the 30-day follow-up. The patients with perforation were divided into fatal and non-fatal groups and analyzed for mortality risk factors. The case volume of centers and endoscopists were divided into the upper quartile (Q4) and the lower three quartile (Q1–3) groups. Furthermore, fatal group patients’ records were reviewed.

Results

Death within 90 days after ERCP-related perforations or at the index hospitalization occurred in 20% (75 out of 376) for all perforations and 0.1% (75 out of 52,140) for all ERCPs. The independent risk factors for death after perforation were malignancy (OR 11.2, 95% CI 5.8–21.6), age over 80 years (OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.0–7.4), and sphincterotomy in the pancreatic duct (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1–7.5). In Q4 centers, the mortality was similar with or without pancreatic duct sphincterotomy (14% vs. 13%, p = 1.0), but in Q1–3 centers mortality was higher (45% vs. 21%, p = 0.024).

Conclusions

ERCP-related perforations are severe adverse events with low incidence (0.7%) and high mortality rate up to 20%. Malignancy, age over 80 years, and sphincterotomy in the pancreatic duct increase the risk to die after a perforation. The risk of a fatal outcome in perforations after pancreatic duct sphincterotomy was reduced when occurred at a Q4-center. In the case of a complicated perforation a transfer to a Q4-center may be considered.

Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an imaging review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has currently become an inseparable tool in the gastroenterologist's armamentarium for treatment of pancreaticobiliary disorders. Given the increase in number of therapeutic ERCP procedures today, the need for prompt and correct diagnosis of its complications is pivotal. This review discusses the mechanisms, risk factors, imaging findings and general management aspects of common and rare complications of ERCP. Furthermore, the review elaborates on imaging indications, recommended protocol and normal imaging findings post ERCP.

ERCP-related perforation: an analysis of operative outcomes in a large series over 12 years

BACKGROUND

Perforation is a rare but serious adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of morbidity and mortality after surgical management of ERCP-related perforation (EP).

METHODS

The records of patients with EP requiring surgical intervention at a tertiary referral center in a 12-year period (2004-2016) were retrospectively analyzed for demography, indications for ERCP, risk factors, timing and type of surgical repair, post-operative course, hospital stay, and outcome. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify the parameters predicting survival.

RESULTS

Of 25,300 ERCPs, 380 (1.5%) had EP. Non-operative management was successful in 330 (86.8%) patients. 50 (13.2%) patients were operated for EP. Out of 50, the perforation was detected during ERCP (intra-procedure) in 32 patients (64%). In 30 patients (60%), the surgery was performed within 24 h of ERCP. Twenty patients underwent delayed surgery (after 24 h of ERCP) following the failure of initial non-operative management. The delayed surgery after an unsuccessful medical treatment had a detrimental effect on morbidity, mortality and hospital stay. Post-operative duodenal leak was the only independent predictor of 90-day mortality (p = 0.02, OR = 9.1, 95% CI 1.52-54.64). Addition of T-tube duodenostomy (TTD) to the primary repair for either type I or type II perforations increased post-operative duodenal leak (type I, p = 0.048 and type II; p = 0.001) and mortality (type I, p = 0.009 and type II, p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Although EP is a rare event, it has a serious impact on morbidity and mortality. Delaying of surgery following failed non-operative management worsens the prognosis. Addition of TTD to the repair is not helpful in these patients.

Endoscopic Treatment of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Duodenal Perforations

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related duodenal perforation is a rare complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated endoscopic management experience and outcomes of ERCP-related duodenal perforations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2005 and March 2017, a total of 19,468 ERCP procedures were performed in three endoscopy units of three hospitals in China. Diagnoses, management, and outcomes were identified and retrospectively reviewed in 58 of these patients.

RESULTS

According to the classification system, 58 patients included 8 with type I, 44 with type II, 4 with type III, and 2 with type IV perforation. Of type I perforations, 7 patients underwent endoscopic closure with endoclips, and 1 patient was treated with surgical repair. Of type II perforations, 11 patients were actively managed using the fully covered self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) to seal the perforation, and 33 patients were passively managed using nose-biliary drainage, in which 13 cases had retroperitoneal abscess formation and were successfully treated by abdominal computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous external drainage, but 1 patient died due to sepsis. One patient with type III perforation (pancreatic duct perforation) underwent endoscopic pancreatic duct stent placement after surgery failure. The mean hospital stay of 11 cases with type II perforation treated actively by endoscopy (26.5 ± 3.3 days) was lower compared with 33 cases who received passive conservative treatment (34.6 ± 3.9 days).

CONCLUSION

Many (especially type I and II) ERCP-related duodenal perforations can be successfully treated with endoscopic management. Active endoscopic therapy may be better than passive conservative treatment for type II perforations.

Biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy: Techniques and complications

Biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) refers to the cutting of the biliary sphincter and intraduodenal segment of the common bile duct following selective cannulation, using a high frequency current applied with a special knife, sphincterotome, inserted into the papilla. EST is either used solely for the treatment of diseases of the papilla of Vater, such as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction or to facilitate subsequent therapeutic biliary interventions, such as stone extraction, stenting, etc. It is a prerequisite for biliary interventions, thus every practitioner who performs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography needs to know different techniques and the clinical and anatomic parameters related to the efficacy and safety of the procedure. In this manuscript, we will review the indications, contraindications and techniques of biliary EST and the management of its complications.

Non-Operative Management of Type 2 ERCP-Related Retroperitoneal Duodenal Perforations: A 9-Year Experience From a Single Center

Background

No consensus exists on treatment of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) -related, retroperitoneal duodenal perforations. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of post-ERCP retroperitoneal periampullary (type 2) duodenal perforations and the clinical outcome of non-surgical management.

Methods

Patients who underwent ERCP in our institution during the period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2017 were included. Any cases of retroperitoneal periampullary duodenal (type 2) perforation were identified. Relevant data (patient characteristics, indications, radiographic findings, time to diagnosis and surgery, surgical procedures, hospital stay and outcome) were retrospectively collected and reviewed. Results were compared to those from the existing literature.

Results

There were 24 patients with retroperitoneal type 2 duodenal perforation following 4,196 ERCPs were identified (24/4196, 0.57%) over the 9-year period. ERCP indications were: choledocholithiasis, obstructive jaundice and ampullectomy (ampullary adenoma). Diagnosis (aided by CT scan) was established within the first 12 h in the majority of patients (21/24, 87.5%) and intraprocedural in 3/24, (12.5%). Twelve patients (50%) with deteriorating clinical course were managed with CT-guided percutaneous drainage. Surgical intervention was required in two (8.3%). Overall mortality was 4.2%, 1/24 (one patient died after surgery).

Conclusions

Retroperitoneal duodenal perforation is a rare and severe ERCP complication. However, conservative management is feasible in the majority of cases.

The importance of early recognition in management of ERCP-related perforations

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare events, carrying with it a mortality of up to 8%. Given the rarity of this adverse event, there remains limited data and continued uncertainties when choosing therapeutic strategies. Our aims were to evaluate the management of ERCP-related perforations and compare outcomes based on timing of recognition.

METHODS

The endoscopic databases of two tertiary care centers were interrogated to identify consecutive adult patients who sustained ERCP-related perforation over a 10-year period from 2006 to 2016. Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract demographic data, perforation type, management strategies, clinical data, and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

14,045 ERCP's were performed during our 10-year study period. Sixty-three patients (average age 62.3 ± 2.38 years, 76% female) with ERCP-related perforations were included. Stapfer I perforations were found in 14 (22.2%) patients, Stapfer II in 24 (38.1%), and Stapfer III and IV perforations were identified in 16 (25.4%) and 9 (14.28%), respectively. Forty-seven (74.6%) perforations were recognized immediately during the ERCP, whereas 16 (25.4%) were recognized late. Endoscopic therapy was attempted in 35 patients in whom perforations were identified immediately, and was technically successful in 33 (94.3%). In all, 4 (1 immediate/ 3 delayed) patients required percutaneous drainage and 9 (5 immediate/ 4 delayed) surgery. Length of hospital stay, ICU admission were significantly shorter and incidence of SIRS was significantly lower when perforation was recognized immediately.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate recognition of ERCP-related perforations leads to more favorable patient outcomes; with lower incidence of SIRS, less need for ICU level care, and shorter hospital stay.

A Case of Unresolved and Worsening Retroperitoneal Abscess

Retroperitoneal abscess is a rare condition which is difficult to diagnose and treat because of its insidious onset. Herein, we present a case of retroperitoneal abscess secondary to a perforation that occurred during an ERCP. A 54-year-old female patient was admitted to an outside hospital with gallstone pancreatitis and underwent ERCP with sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. An abdominal CT scan was performed at the outside hospital 10 days later for worsening abdominal pain which showed multiple loculated pockets in the right upper and lower quadrant. Her condition improved after IV antibiotics and percutaneous drainage. Her symptoms recurred a month later and she presented to our hospital. Repeat abdominal CT scan at our hospital revealed recurrence of her abscesses. Multiple drains were placed and the abscess cavity was washed out without much improvement. EGD revealed a small mucosal defect in the distal portion of the duodenal bulb which was closed successfully using an over-the-scope clip. Repeat CT scan after 8 weeks from the endoscopic closure showed near complete resolution of the abscess. ERCP-associated perforation is a rare complication and can be challenging to diagnose and treat; prompt recognition is mandatory for favorable prognosis. Our patient was managed successfully via nonsurgical approach.

A systematic review of the management and outcome of ERCP related duodenal perforations using a standardized classification system

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of duodenal perforation after ERCP ranges from 0.09% to 1.67% and mortality up to 8%.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO. Stapfer classification of ERCP-related duodenal perforations was used.

RESULTS

The systematic search yielded 259 articles. Most frequent post-ERCP perforation was Stapfer type II (58.4%), type I second most frequent perforation (17.8%) followed by Stapfer type III in 13.2% and type IV in 10.6%. Rate of NOM was lowest in Stapfer type I perforations (13%), moderate in type III lesions (58.1%) and high in other types of perforations (84.2% in type II and 84.6% in IV). In patients underwent early surgical treatment (<24 h from ERCP) the most frequent operation was simple duodenal suture with or without omentopexy (93.7%). In patients undergoing late surgical treatment (>24 h from ERCP) interventions performed were more complex. In type I lesions post-operative mortality rate was higher in patients underwent late operation (>24 h). In type I lesions, failure of NOM occurred in 42.8% of patients. In type II failure of NOM occurred in 28.9% of patients and in type III there was failure of NOM in only 11.1%, none in type IV. Postoperative mortality after NOM failure was 75% in type I, 22.5% in type II and none died after surgical treatment for failure of NOM in type III perforations.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review showed that in patients with Stapfer type I lesions, early surgical treatment gives better results, however the opposite seems true in Stapfer III and IV lesions.

Clinical outcomes of ERCP-related retroperitoneal perforations

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related perforations represent rare but often severe conditions. While lesions with intraperitoneal perforation have an almost imperative indication to surgery, whether or not to manage retroperitoneal perforations surgically is still an area of debate. The aim of the present work was to review the available clinical evidence on the operatively and medically treated ERCP-related retroperitoneal perforations. From MEDLINE/PubMed databases 137 patients with retroperitoneal perforation were included from 12 studies that met the selection criteria for data investigation and analysis. Twenty-four patients were treated by prompt surgery; 113 were primarily managed conservatively and about 20% of these patients required surgery subsequently. Overall, the morbidity and mortality were 15.4% and 6.6%, respectively. Although most patients with retroperitoneal perforation may benefit from a non-operative management, a considerable number of patients fail to respond to medical treatment and require surgery afterwards. Identifying those patients who are at highest risk of poor outcome after conservative treatment should be considered a research priority.

Utility of needle-knife fistulotomy as an initial method of biliary cannulation to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in a highly selected at-risk group: a single-arm prospective feasibility study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) as an initial procedure for biliary access in patients with stones in the common bile duct (CBD) who were at increased risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHOD

Fifty-five patients who underwent ERCP with NKF for CBD stones at our institution between July 2013, and May 2015, were prospectively enrolled in this study. They had one or more of the following risk factors for PEP: young age (<60 years), female sex, or normal CBD diameter (≤9 mm). The procedure was performed by an expert biliary endoscopist (S.J.). The success rate of biliary cannulation and CBD stone removal, and the incidence rate of adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients had 1 risk factor for PEP, 27 had 2, and 11 had 3. The median procedure times for NKF and CBD stone removal after NKF were 2.1 minutes (range, 0.2-8.7 min) and 6.5 minutes (range, 1.1-28.3 min), respectively. Success rates of CBD cannulation and stone removal using NKF were 96.3% (53/55) and 92.7% (51/55), respectively. None of the patients experienced PEP. Retroperitoneal duodenal perforation occurred in 1 patient (1.8%), but it was successfully treated by conservative management.

CONCLUSION

NKF might be feasible as an initial procedure for biliary access in patients with CBD stones who are at high risk for PEP if the procedure is performed by an expert biliary endoscopist. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001698.).

Algorithm for the management of ERCP-related perforations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Perforation is a rare but serious adverse event of ERCP. There is no consensus to guide the clinician on the management of ERCP-related perforations, with particular controversy surrounding the immediate surgical management of postprocedurally detected duodenal perforation because of overextension of a sphincterotomy. Our aim was to assess patient outcomes using a predetermined algorithm based on managing ERCP-related duodenal perforations according to the mechanism of injury.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study of all consecutive patients with Stapfer type I and II perforations between 2000 and 2014 were included. Our institutional algorithm since 2000 dictated that Stapfer type I perforations (duodenal wall perforation, endoscope related) should be managed surgically unless prohibited by underlying comorbidities and Stapfer type II perforations (periampullary, sphincterotomy related) managed nonsurgically unless a deterioration in clinical status necessitated surgery.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (mean age, 51 years; 80% women) were analyzed with Stapfer type I perforations diagnosed in 7 (11%) and type II in 54 (89%). A postprocedural diagnosis of perforation was made in 55 patients (90%). Four patients (7%) had Stapfer type II perforations that failed medical management and required surgery. The mean length of stay (LOS) in the entire cohort was 9.6 days with a low mortality rate of 3%. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome was observed in 18 patients (33%) with Stapfer type II perforations and was not associated with the need for surgery. Concurrent post-ERCP pancreatitis was diagnosed in 26 patients (43%) and was associated with an increased LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Stapfer type II perforations have excellent outcomes when managed medically. We validate an algorithm for the management of ERCP-related perforations and propose that it should function as a guide.

Sudden appearance of free fluid during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration

During endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of a pancreatic malignancy, a small quantity of free fluid, not seen before, suddenly appeared in the view, and time was spent ruling out ongoing hemorrhage. However, during follow-up, the patient gradually developed peritoneal signs and was referred for surgery. The images presented elucidate the diagnosis and raise the question of a theoretical change in diagnostic and therapeutic approach.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforations: Diagnosis and management

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become an important therapeutic modality for biliary and pancreatic disorders. Perforation is one of the most feared complications of ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy. A MEDLINE search was performed from 2000-2014 using the keywords “perforation”, “ERCP” and “endoscopic sphincterotomy”. All articles including more than nine cases were reviewed. The incidence of ERCP-related perforations was low (0.39%, 95%CI: 0.34-0.69) with an associated mortality of 7.8% (95%CI: 3.80-13.07). Endoscopic sphincterotomy was responsible for 41% of perforations, insertion and manipulations of the endoscope for 26%, guidewires for 15%, dilation of strictures for 3%, other instruments for 4%, stent insertion or migration for 2% and in 7% of cases the etiology was unknown. The diagnosis was made during ERCP in 73% of cases. The mechanism, site and extent of injury, suggested by clinical and radiographic findings, should guide towards operative or non-operative management. In type I perforations early surgical repair is indicated, unless endoscopic closure can be achieved. Patients with type II perforations should be treated initially non-operatively. Non-operative treatment includes biliary stenting, fasting, intravenous fluid resuscitation, nasogastric drainage, broad spectrum antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of fluid collections. Non-operative treatment was successful in 79% of patients with type II injuries, with an overall mortality of 9.4%. Non-operative treatment was sufficient in all patients with type III injuries. Surgical technique depends on timing, site and size of defect and clinical condition of the patient. In conclusion, diagnosis is based on clinical suspicion and clinical and radiographic findings. Whilst surgery is usually indicated in patients with type I injuries, patients with type II or III injuries should be treated initially non-operatively. A minority of them will finally require surgical intervention.