ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Stapfer I and II duodenal perforations after endoscopic procedures: how surgical delay impacts outcomes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-endoscopic duodenal perforation is a severe adverse event with high morbidity and mortality rates. Managing this rare event is challenging owing to limited clear guidelines. This retrospective study aimed to examine the relationship between time-to-treatment and morbidity among patients with post-endoscopic duodenal perforations.
methodsOver 20 years, 78 consecutive patients with post-endoscopic duodenal perforations were analyzed. Among these, most patients underwent endoscopic procedures at the Paoli-Calmettes Institute, whereas some were referred from other centers after a diagnosis of perforation. We described the characteristics of patients who underwent medical treatment alone or interventional procedures. Among patients who underwent interventional management, we compared the outcomes following early or delayed procedures (later than 24 h post-duodenal perforation diagnosis).
resultsOverall, 78 patients with post-endoscopic duodenal perforation were identified between September 2003 and September 2022. Of these, 17 (22%) patients underwent non-operative management, and 61 (78%) with peritonitis or adverse clinical features were treated with endoscopic or surgical procedures. Additionally, among these patients, 40 (65%) underwent immediate invasive procedures, surgically (n = 20) or endoscopically (n = 20). Patients with delayed procedures experienced more major Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications and had an increase by 21 of the median comprehensive complication index. Overall, mortality occurred in 7 (8.9%) patients in the entire cohort and in 3 (14.3%) with delayed invasive procedures.
conclusionsDelayed decision-making is a key factor complicating post-endoscopic duodenal perforation. Therefore, invasive procedures should be performed promptly in cases of adverse conditions requiring additional procedures, ideally within the first 24 h of perforation diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39285044What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.