Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 264–269 | Cite as

Surgical Trends in the Management of Duodenal Injury

  • Alberto Aiolfi
  • Kazuhide MatsushimaEmail author
  • Gloria Chang
  • James Bardes
  • Aaron Strumwasser
  • Lydia Lam
  • Kenji Inaba
  • Demetrios Demetriades
Original Article



Surgical management of traumatic duodenal injury remains challenging. While various surgical techniques have been described in the attempt to reduce complications and mortality, recent data suggests that surgical approach using less invasive procedures might be associated with improved patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the recent trend of surgical procedures performed for patients with duodenal injury and their outcome.


A retrospective analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2002 to 2014 was performed. A total of 2163 patients who sustained a traumatic duodenal injury requiring surgical intervention were included. Patient characteristics, injury data, procedures, and outcomes were examined. Types of duodenal procedures and patient outcomes were compared between two study periods (2002–2006 vs. 2007–2014).


The median age was 27 (IQR 20–39), 78.9% were male, and 63.8% sustained penetrating duodenal injury. The median injury severity score was 18 (IQR 13–26). In patients with isolated duodenal injury, the later study period (2007–2014) was significantly associated with the increased use of primary repair (OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.11–2.83, p = 0.017). Overall mortality was 11.7%. Patients in the later study group were significantly associated with lower odds of inhospital mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22–0.95, p = 0.041).


A progressive trend toward less invasive procedures for duodenal injury was noted in the current study. Inhospital mortality has improved in the late study period.


Duodenal injury Trends Surgical management 


Author Contribution

Study concept, design: Aiolfi, Matsushima, Chang, Bardes, Strumwasser, Lam, Inaba, Demetriades

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Aiolfi, Matsushima, Chang

Drafting: Aiolfi, Matsushima, Chang

Critical revision: Bardes, Strumwasser, Lam, Inaba, Demetriades

Final approval: Aiolfi, Matsushima, Chang, Bardes, Strumwasser, Lam, Inaba, Demetriades

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Asensio JA, Feliciano DV, Britt LD, Kerstein MD. Management of duodenal injuries. Curr Probl Surg 1993;30:1023–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Velmahos GC, Tabbara M, Gross R, Willette P, Hirsch E, Burke P, et al. Blunt pancreatoduodenal injury: a multicenter study of the Research Consortium of New England Centers for Trauma (ReCONECT). Arch Surg 2009;144:413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blocksom JM, Tyburski JG, Sohn RL, Williams M, Harvey E, Steffes CP, et al. Prognostic determinants in duodenal injuries. Am Surg 2004;70:248–255.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berne CJ, Donovan AJ, Hagen WE. Combined duodenal pancreatic trauma: the role of gastrojejunostomy. Arch Surg. 1968;96:712–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vaughan GD III, Frazier OH, Graham DY, Mattox KL, Petmecky FF, Jordan GL Jr. The use of pyloric exclusion in the management of severe duodenal injuries. Am J Surg. 1977;134:785–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin TD, Feliciano DV, Mattox KL, Jordan GL Jr. Severe duodenal injuries: treatment with pyloric exclusion and gastrojejunostomy. Arch Surg. 1983;118:631–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rotondo MF, Schwab CW, McGonigal MD, Phillips GR 3rd, Fruchterman TM, Kauder DR, et al. ‘Damage control’: an approach for improved survival in exsanguinating penetrating abdominal injury. J Trauma. 1993;35:375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Talving P, Nicol AJ, Navsaria PH. Civilian duodenal gunshot wounds: surgical management made simpler. World J Surg 2006;30:488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seamon MJ, Pieri PG, Fisher CA, Gaughan J, Santora TA, Pathak AS, et al. A ten year retrospective review: does pyloric exclusion improve clinical outcome after penetrating duodenal and combined pancreaticoduodenal injuries? J Trauma. 2007;62:829–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubose JJ, Inaba K, Teixeira PGR, Shiflett A, Putty B, Green DJ, et al. Pyloric Exclusion in the Treatment of Severe Duodenal Injuries: Results from the National Trauma Data Bank. Am Surg. 2008;74:925–929.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Velmahos GC, Constantinou C, Kasotakis G. Safety of repair for severe duodenal injuries. World J Surg 2008;32:7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malhotra A, Biffl WL, Moore EE, Schreiber M, Albrecht RA, Cohen M, et al. Western Trauma Association Critical Decisions in Trauma: Diagnosis and management of duodenal injuries. J Trauma. 2015;79:1096–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts DJ, Ball CG, Feliciano DV, Moore EE, Ivatury RR, Lucas CE, et al. History of the Innovation of Damage Control for Management of Trauma Patients: 1902-2016. Ann Surg. 2017;265;1034–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cannon JW, Khan MA, Raja A, Cohen MJ, Como JJ, Cotton BA, et al. Damage control resuscitation in patients with severe traumatic hemorrhage: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma. 2017;82:605–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siboni S, Benjamin E, Haltmeier T, Inaba K, Demetriades D. Isolated Blunt Duodenal Trauma: Simple Repair, Low Mortality. Am Surg. 2015;81:961–964.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Aiolfi
    • 1
  • Kazuhide Matsushima
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gloria Chang
    • 1
  • James Bardes
    • 1
  • Aaron Strumwasser
    • 1
  • Lydia Lam
    • 1
  • Kenji Inaba
    • 1
  • Demetrios Demetriades
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Acute Care Surgery, LAC+USC Medical CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations