Surgical Treatment of Duodenal Trauma


Grade

Types of injury

Details

I

Hematoma

Laceration

Single hematoma

Partial thickness

II

Hematoma

Laceration

Distributed in more than one portion

<50 % circumference

III

Lacerations

50–75 % D2

50–100 % D1,3,4

IV

>75 % D2

Involves ampulla or distal CBD

V

Major disruption of duodeno-pancreatic complex, devascularization


CBD common bile duct



A315732_1_En_10_Fig1_HTML.gif


Fig. 10.1
Schematic representation of duodenal injury grading. Dotted lines represent a sharp penetrating force (i.e., knife, bullet)




10.3 Diagnosis


A high index of suspicion of duodenal injuries is the key to dealing with patients with a trauma suggestive of this type of injury and typical physical findings. Penetrating duodenal injury can be expeditiously diagnosed during explorative laparotomy. Initially, hemostasis should be prioritized. Once bleeding and major contamination control is achieved, the duodenum should be the next injury to be addressed. When duodenal injuries are suspected based on intraoperative findings, such as hepatic flexure, stomach or liver injuries, or local signs such as bruised duodenum, saponification, or bile leak, full kocherization is performed to assess the integrity of the duodenum. Table 10.2 shows the incidences of other organ injuries often associated with duodenal injury.


Table 10.2
Incidences of organ injuries associated with duodenal injury




















































Organs

Incidence (%)

Gall bladder

9

Liver

38

Common bile duct

5

Renal vessels

5

Pancreas

28

Superior mesenteric vessels

7

Right kidney

21

Ureter

5

Stomach

24

Transverse colon

30

Small bowel

29

Aorta

5

Inferior vena cava

17

Miscellaneous

17


Reference: Morton and Jordan [5]

In blunt injury, patients with highly suggestive mechanisms, such as a direct blow to epigastrium, or seat belt injury with fracture of thoracolumbar junction, need to be carefully considered for duodenal injury. Physical findings such as tissue contusion in the upper abdomen, lower rib fractures, or disproportionally severe epigastric pain may arouse suspicion of duodenal injury. It is of note that blood tests, including lipase and liver function tests, have no diagnostic value in predicting duodenal injury.

Nonoperative management (NOM) of patients with blunt abdominal trauma and normal hemodynamics, in the absence of obvious bowel injuries, is usually successful but poses a risk of missing duodenal injuries. NOM relies heavily on computed tomography (CT) to exclude hollow viscus injuries. Unexplained peritoneal free fluid in CT is often described as an indicator for small bowel and duodenal injury. Nevertheless, it has not proved to be a reliable sign. Ballard et al. reported that 27 % of duodenal injuries were missed despite a negative initial CT and advocated that CT with oral and IV contrast should be performed [12]. A retrospective study by Allen et al. demonstrated that subtle CT findings such as isolated free fluid or unusual bowel morphology were retrospectively observed in 83 % of the patients with delayed diagnosed duodenal injuries [6, 7]. More importantly, 23 % of those injuries had normal initial CT studies. False-positive results sometimes occur [13, 14]. Rodriguez et al. concluded that a therapeutic laparotomy was performed in only 22 % of those patients with positive CT scan [13]. One study by Mirvis et al. demonstrated that the accuracy of prospective CT scan was only 59 % (10 out of 17), but when the images were retrospectively interpreted, it increased up to 88 % [14]. Considering the poor sensitivity of CT for hollow viscus injuries, the elusive characteristic of this injury, and the deleterious consequences of delayed diagnosis, it should be emphasized that the diagnosis of duodenal injury should be based on the combination of mechanisms, clinical findings, and radiological findings. Careful inspection and interpretation by experienced radiologists and surgeons are required to detect initial duodenal injury [15].

Until two decades ago, diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) was the main diagnostic tool for abdominal trauma. Intra-abdominal bleeding is now detected or excluded with ultrasound, namely, FAST (focused assessment with sonography for trauma). The role of DPL is now limited to the diagnosis of hollow viscous injury when the multi-slice CT scan findings are ambiguous or suspicious. Due to the mainly retroperitoneal location of the duodenum, DPL is unreliable in the diagnosis of duodenal injuries [7].

Considering a lack of specific tests for excluding duodenal injuries, a diagnostic explorative laparotomy is still often required. We must emphasize that a negative laparotomy carries minimal complication especially when compared to a delayed diagnosis of duodenal injury. Duodenal injuries are often associated with other intra-abdominal injuries (liver, pancreatic, or bowel) and retroperitoneal injuries (kidney or major vessel), and intraoperative diagnosis of these injuries is also a possibility.


10.4 Determinants of Outcome


Historically, factors contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in patients with duodenal injuries are as follows: (1) blunt mechanism or gunshot wound, (2) a laceration or defect larger than 75 % of circumference, (3) delay to treatment of more than 24 h, and (4) injuries to the first or second portion of duodenum [16]. These determinants are briefly discussed below:

1.

Direct attribution of mortality to duodenal injury is probably less than 5 %. Common causes of death are early exsanguination and late complications such as wound dehiscence, sepsis, and multiple organ failure [3, 1620]. Mortality varied among different mechanisms. In penetrating trauma, 25–28 % mortality is reported, while the mortality in blunt trauma is in the range between 12 and 15 % [3, 16, 1921]. Higher mortality in gunshot patients and blunt trauma patients is due to the frequently associated injuries to the surrounding organs and major vessels. It is challenging when an inferior vena cava injury or a complex liver injury is combined with duodenal injury.

 

2.

The size of the defect in the duodenum is one of the key factors determining the type of surgery required and predicting outcome. Injuries inflicted by sharp instrument tend to be less extensive, requiring less tissue debridement than those created by blunt force or missile injuries. Snyder et al. demonstrated a significantly lower mortality and morbidity following duodenal injury in patients with lacerations of less than 75 % of the circumference of the duodenum, compared to those with a laceration of greater than 75 %. The respective mortality rates were 3 and 6 %, and the rates of duodenal fistula were 6 and 14 %, respectively [16].

 

3.

The time from injury to definitive treatment has been repeatedly proven to be an important factor predicting further complications and subsequent mortality. Historically, the impact of delayed diagnosis and its frequent occurrence have been emphasized [19, 20]. Although there is no certain deadline for diagnosis, historical clinical series suggested that delayed diagnosis and further delayed intervention could lead to detrimental outcomes: doubling the mortality and increasing the risk of duodenal fistula formation [19, 20].

 

4.

The portion of duodenum involved is important when evaluating duodenal injury. In particular, damage to the second part of the duodenum, containing the ampulla of Vater and surrounding the head of pancreas, is linked with challenging surgical procedures, long recovery, and higher mortality rates. One of the largest series available, which evaluated 247 duodenal injuries, supports this concept. In this study, mortality was 4 % when the first or second portion of duodenum was injured, while no mortality occurred with injuries to the third and fourth parts of duodenum [3]. In addition, fistula formation after the injury was observed at 8.6, 11.7, 5.8, and 0 % in the first portion, second portion, third portion, and the fourth portion of duodenum, respectively.

 

More recently, in a similar study of 55 patients, AAST grade, hemodynamic status, intraoperative cardiac arrest, and operative time were all strongly predictive of mortality on multivariate analysis, while AAST grade represented the only independent prognostic factor predictive of overall morbidity [22].


10.5 Operative Management



10.5.1 Treatment Principle


The key steps to successful treatment of duodenal injuries do not differ from those of the typical trauma laparotomy: (1) identification and control of all bleeding, (2) contamination control, and (3) anatomical repair. These may happen as a single procedure (for isolated and limited duodenal injuries), or due to the presence of other serious injuries and physiologic derangement of the patient, the procedure may need to be truncated after bleeding and contamination control (according to the principle of damage control surgery).

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Mar 29, 2017 | Posted by in ABDOMINAL MEDICINE | Comments Off on Surgical Treatment of Duodenal Trauma

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access