Download PDF
Eur J Pediatr Surg 2023; 33(06): 503-509
DOI: 10.1055/a-2003-1920
Original Article

Congenital Duodenal Obstruction: National Trends in Management and Outcomes during the Last Quarter of a Century in Norway

Martin Treider 
1   Department of General and Pediatric Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
,
Sturla Granheim
2   Department of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Trøndelag, Norway
,
Anders Hauge Engebretsen
1   Department of General and Pediatric Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
,
Are Hugo Pripp
3   Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
,
Henrik Røkkum
1   Department of General and Pediatric Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
5   Depratment of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo Faculty of Medicine, Oslo, Norway
,
Hans Skari
1   Department of General and Pediatric Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
,
Thorstein Sæter
2   Department of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Trøndelag, Norway
4   Department of Pediatric Surgery, St. Olavs Hospital Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Trøndelag, Norway
,
Kristin Bjørnland
1   Department of General and Pediatric Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
5   Depratment of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo Faculty of Medicine, Oslo, Norway
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction During the last quarter of a century, new surgical techniques in neonates have been introduced, and neonatal intensive care has developed. Few studies have explored the implementation of new techniques and if outcomes in neonates undergoing gastrointestinal surgery have improved in the last decades. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate possible changes in postoperative outcomes and surgical techniques in all neonates operated for congenital duodenal obstruction (CDO) 1995 to 2020 in Norway.

Material and Methods This is a national multicenter retrospective study of all neonates undergoing surgery for CDO in Norway from 1995 to 2020. Results from three periods (1995–2003, 2004–2012, and 2013–2020) were compared. The study was approved by the local data protection officers (2020/13386) and (2020/15125).

Results We included 186 patients: 41 in period 1 (1995–2003), 83 in period 2 (2004–2012), and 62 in period 3 (2013–2020). Seventy (38%) neonates had Down syndrome and 104 (62%) had additional malformations/disorders. Birth weight, gender, frequency of Down syndrome, and other malformations/disorders did not differ between the three periods. We observed an increased rate of prenatal diagnosis throughout the study period (p < 0.001). The only change in surgical technique was the increased use of transanastomotic feeding tubes (p < 0.001). Length of stay, postoperative complication rate, days with parenteral nutrition, and 30-day mortality rate were stable over time.

Conclusion Perioperative treatment and postoperative outcomes in neonates with CDO have been surprisingly unchanged during the last quarter of a century. Only an increased rate of prenatal diagnosis and more frequent use of transanastomotic feeding tubes were observed.

Keywords

ERAS - neonatal surgery - enhanced recovery after surgery - congenital duodenal obstruction - transanastomotic feeding tube


Publication History

Received: 30 August 2022

Accepted: 19 December 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
22 December 2022

Article published online:
10 February 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bethell GS, Long AM, Knight M, Hall NJ. BAPS-CASS. Congenital duodenal obstruction in the UK: a population-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2020; 105 (02) 178-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Miscia ME, Lauriti G, Lelli Chiesa P, Zani A. Duodenal atresia and associated intestinal atresia: a cohort study and review of the literature. Pediatr Surg Int 2019; 35 (01) 151-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Best KE, Tennant PW, Addor MC. et al. Epidemiology of small intestinal atresia in Europe: a register-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2012; 97 (05) F353-F358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Smith MD, Landman MP. Feeding outcomes in neonates with trisomy 21 and duodenal atresia. J Surg Res 2019; 244: 91-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Murshed R, Nicholls G, Spitz L. Intrinsic duodenal obstruction: trends in management and outcome over 45 years (1951-1995) with relevance to prenatal counselling. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106 (11) 1197-1199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Yagi M, Kohno M, Asagiri K. et al. Twenty-year trends in neonatal surgery based on a nationwide Japanese surveillance program. Pediatr Surg Int 2015; 31 (10) 955-962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Tan KC, Bianchi A. Circumumbilical incision for pyloromyotomy. Br J Surg 1986; 73 (05) 399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ghaffarpour N, Svensson PJ, Svenningsson A, Wester T, Mesas Burgos C. Supraumbilical incision with U-u umbilicoplasty for congenital duodenal atresia: the Stockholm experience. J Pediatr Surg 2013; 48 (09) 1981-1985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Takahashi Y, Tajiri T, Masumoto K. et al. Umbilical crease incision for duodenal atresia achieves excellent cosmetic results. Pediatr Surg Int 2010; 26 (10) 963-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bax NM, Ure BM, van der Zee DC, van Tuijl I. Laparoscopic duodenoduodenostomy for duodenal atresia. Surg Endosc 2001; 15 (02) 217
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Zhang J, Xu X, Wang X, Zhao L, Lv Y, Chen K. Laparoscopic versus open repair of congenital duodenal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int 2022; 38 (11) 1507-1515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surg 2017; 152 (03) 292-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brindle ME, McDiarmid C, Short K. et al. Consensus guidelines for perioperative care in neonatal intestinal surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. World J Surg 2020; 44 (08) 2482-2492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mooney D, Lewis JE, Connors RH, Weber TR. Newborn duodenal atresia: an improving outlook. Am J Surg 1987; 153 (04) 347-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cresner R, Neville JJ, Drewett M, Hall NJ, Darwish AA. Use of trans-anastomotic tubes in congenital duodenal obstruction. J Pediatr Surg 2022; 57 (09) 45-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Biradar N, Gera P, Rao S. Trans-anastomotic tube feeding in the management of congenital duodenal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int 2021; 37 (11) 1489-1498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hui L. Noninvasive approaches to prenatal diagnosis: historical perspective and future directions. Methods Mol Biol 2019; 1885: 45-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bittencourt DG, Barini R, Marba S, Sbragia L. Congenital duodenal obstruction: does prenatal diagnosis improve the outcome?. Pediatr Surg Int 2004; 20 (08) 582-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Romero R, Ghidini A, Costigan K, Touloukian R, Hobbins JC. Prenatal diagnosis of duodenal atresia: does it make any difference?. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71 (05) 739-741
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Savran B, Adigüzel Ü, Yüksel KB. et al. The importance of antenatal diagnosis of congenital duodenal obstruction. Ir J Med Sci 2016; 185 (03) 695-698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Choudhry MS, Rahman N, Boyd P, Lakhoo K. Duodenal atresia: associated anomalies, prenatal diagnosis and outcome. Pediatr Surg Int 2009; 25 (08) 727-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240 (02) 205-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Makkadafi M, Fauzi AR, Wandita S, Makhmudi A. , Gunadi, Outcomes and survival of infants with congenital duodenal obstruction following Kimura procedure with post-anastomosis jejunostomy feeding tube. BMC Gastroenterol 2021; 21 (01) 100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Peng Y, Xiao D, Xiao S. et al. Early enteral feeding versus traditional feeding in neonatal congenital gastrointestinal malformation undergoing intestinal anastomosis: a randomized multicenter controlled trial of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) component. J Pediatr Surg 2021; 56 (09) 1485-1486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Holler AS, Muensterer OJ, Martynov I, Gianicolo EA, Lacher M, Zimmermann P. Duodenal atresia repair using a miniature stapler compared to laparoscopic hand-sewn and open technique. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2019; 29 (10) 1216-1222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chung PH, Wong CW, Ip DK, Tam PK, Wong KK. Is laparoscopic surgery better than open surgery for the repair of congenital duodenal obstruction? A review of the current evidences. J Pediatr Surg 2017; 52 (03) 498-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mitul AR, Sarin YK. Minimal access surgery in neonates. J Neonatal Surg 2017; 6 (03) 59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Treider M, Engebretsen AH, Skari H, Bjørnland K. Is postoperative transanastomotic feeding beneficial in neonates with congenital duodenal obstruction?. Pediatr Surg Int 2022; 38 (03) 479-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Haeusler MC, Berghold A, Stoll C, Barisic I, Clementi M. EUROSCAN Study Group. Prenatal ultrasonographic detection of gastrointestinal obstruction: results from 18 European congenital anomaly registries. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22 (07) 616-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gfroerer S, Theilen TM, Fiegel HC, Esmaeili A, Rolle U. Comparison of outcomes between complete and incomplete congenital duodenal obstruction. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25 (28) 3787-3797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Piper HG, Alesbury J, Waterford SD, Zurakowski D, Jaksic T. Intestinal atresias: factors affecting clinical outcomes. J Pediatr Surg 2008; 43 (07) 1244-1248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar