Non-Operative Management of Type 2 ERCP-Related Retroperitoneal Duodenal Perforations: A 9-Year Experience From a Single Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".