Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Duodenal Atresia

Written By

Yury Kozlov, Elizaveta Bokova and Simon Poloyan

Submitted: 06 December 2022 Reviewed: 23 December 2022 Published: 13 January 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.109690

From the Edited Volume

Current Concepts and Controversies in Laparoscopic Surgery

Edited by John Camilleri-Brennan

Chapter metrics overview

169 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Congenital duodenal obstruction (CDO) is a common surgical disease in newborns accounting for up to 50% of all intestinal atresia cases. Duodenal atresia is a form of CDO that occurs due to failure of the solid core of the duodenum to recanalize during fetal development. Patients with duodenal atresia require complex surgical reconstruction. In 1997, Kimura et al. reported a technique of a diamond-shaped anastomosis revolutionizing the management of duodenal atresia. Initially, this repair required a laparotomy. Increasingly, laparoscopy has been used as an alternative approach for duodenal atresia repair. Laparoscopic reconstruction of duodenal atresia is a challenging procedure requiring creation of a delicate anastomosis in a small workspace.

Keywords

  • duodenal atresia
  • duodenal obstruction
  • laparoscopy
  • duodenal anastomosis
  • minimally invasive
  • duodenal web
  • duodenal membrane
  • transoral

1. Introduction

Congenital duodenal obstruction (CDO) is a common surgical anomaly in newborns [1, 2] that can be diagnosed prenatally and requires careful planning for surgical repair after birth. This chapter focuses on the surgical management duodenal atresia, a common form of CDO. With the rising popularity of laparoscopic surgery, duodenal atresia, one of the forms of CDO, also can be managed laparoscopically. However, use of a laparoscopic approach in these patients requires advanced experience in minimally invasive surgery and special equipment to perform such a demanding procedure in a limited operative space [3, 4]. Multiple operative techniques have been described, each with specific indications which will be discussed further in this chapter.

Advertisement

2. Background

2.1 Epidemiology

Congenital duodenal obstruction accounts for 50% of all intestinal atresia cases [1, 2]. The incidence of the disease varies from 1 in 5000 to 1 in 10,000 newborns [5, 6, 7, 8]. Limited information is available about hereditary forms of CDO. Unlike other types of congenital intestinal obstruction, duodenal obstruction has a high association with other anomalies; such concomitant anomalies are reported in 38% of patients with CDO [9, 10]. The most common associated disease reported is Down syndrome registered in 25–46% of cases [11, 12, 13]. Other associated anomalies include intestinal malrotation (54%), congenital cardiac anomalies (32–48%), esophageal atresia (9%), renal anomalies (5%), and anorectal malformations (7%) [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. These anomalies can be part of VACTERL syndrome or isolated [13]. Spigland et al. reported that 12% of patients with duodenal atresia have an associated anomaly of the biliary tract, such as biliary atresia [21, 22]. Associated diseases tend to determine the postoperative course in patients with duodenal atresia. In patients with associated esophageal atresia or cardiac defects—most often a complete atrioventricular septal defect—high mortality rates have been reported [13, 23].

2.2 Embryology

Duodenal atresia results from an impaired development of the intestinal tube in early fetal life. The most common theory of duodenal atresia development was first described by Tandler et al. in 1900 and is based on failure of the solid core of duodenum to recanalize, also called the developmental arrest (“epithelial plug”) theory [24, 25, 26]. Duodenal development is initiated at the beginning of the 4th gestational week from the distal part of the foregut and the proximal portion of the midgut. Between 5 and 6 weeks of intrauterine life, the lumen of the duodenum temporarily obliterates as a result of intensive proliferation of epithelial cells. Vacuolization, or degeneration of epithelial cells, occurs during the 11th week of gestation and leads to recanalization of the duodenal lumen [27]. Failure of this sequence in fetal development leads to duodenal atresia.

The vascular theory described in the middle of the twentieth century gained less popularity; however, it has been utilized for explanation of the types of duodenal atresia. According to this theory, a vascular accident leads to intrauterine bowel necrosis [28, 29].

Congenital duodenal obstruction can be caused by internal or external factors. Internal etiologies include intestinal atresia, stenosis, duodenal web, and intraluminal duodenal (“windsock”) diverticulum. The latter is a fenestrated membrane in the second portion of the duodenum [30] prolapsing into the lumen of the distal duodenum. These internal forms of CDO are explained by the developmental arrest theory. External duodenal obstruction can result from annular pancreas, malrotation, or preduodenal portal vein. Most authors believe that the annular pancreas alone cannot cause CDO, but only accompanies atresia or stenosis of the intestinal lumen. Annular pancreas is an associated anomaly in patients with CDO [31]. However, the cause of CDO is failure of embryological development, not external compression of the duodenal lumen with the excessive pancreatic tissue [6]. This is well supported by the data obtained during the study of the embryologic development of the digestive tract.

CDO can be classified into pre- and postampullar. The latter is more common and is detected in 85% of affected newborns. In cases of complete obstruction, a dilated stomach and proximal duodenum are visualized, along with pyloric hypertrophy. The digestive tract distal to the obstruction is in a dormant state, excluding rare forms of type I atresia. In such cases, the membrane causing duodenal obstruction prolapses into the distal segment of the duodenum and its significant distention, obfuscating the true location of the obstruction. This anomaly is similar to a duodenal “windsock” diverticulum [32].

2.3 Classification

Congenital duodenal obstruction as described by Gray S. and Skandalakis J. is classified into three types [33]. Type I (the most common) is usually represented by an intraluminal membrane with a normal structure of the common muscular wall for the proximal and distal segments. Duodenal stenosis belongs to this type of CDO. Type II is characterized by a short fibrous cord between the blind segments of the duodenum with separate muscle layers. Type III (rarer) is the complete separation of duodenal segments. In this anatomical variation of duodenal obstruction, multiple atresias are often present and require intraoperative exploration of the small bowel distal to the duodenal obstruction, using a liquid test.

Partial congenital duodenal obstruction or congenital duodenal stenosis, most often fenestrated membrane, is a rare cause of high intestinal obstruction in neonates. The opening in the membrane allows for passage of food and can cause duodenal obstruction of various severity. Thus, the anomaly may not be detected immediately after birth; diagnosis can be delayed even into adulthood [34]. The symptoms can mimic other conditions, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Advertisement

3. Diagnosis

In most cases, the diagnosis of duodenal obstruction can be established prenatally. Duodenal obstruction develops approximately by 12–14 weeks of fetal development, so there is no possibility of earlier detection of this anomaly. Ultrasound is used to define the “double bubble sign.” These are two fluid levels, one in the distended stomach, and the other one in the duodenum (Figure 1). Polyhydramnios develops in pregnancies complicated by duodenal obstruction.

Figure 1.

“Double-bubble” sign of duodenal obstruction on a prenatal ultrasound.

Postnatally, the diagnosis of duodenal obstruction is confirmed in an abdominal X-ray, showing the “double bubble” sign described above (Figure 2). Abdominal ultrasound is necessary to detect not only duodenal atresia (Figure 3), but also to find concomitant anomalies and rare forms of situs inversus. These findings can necessitate alternative port placement during laparoscopy.

Figure 2.

Postnatal X-ray showing the “double-bubble” sign of duodenal obstruction.

Figure 3.

Postnatal ultrasound showing the “double-bubble” sign of duodenal obstruction. 1 – Stomach, 2 – Duodenum.

Advertisement

4. Treatment

4.1 Surgical treatment options

Currently, the standard method of recanalizing the duodenal lumen is a diamond-shaped duodenal anastomosis, first reported by Kimura K. et al. [35]. Reconstruction is usually performed via right supraumbilical or umbilical incisions [10, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. The introduction of minimally invasive laparoscopic instruments, optical systems with small diameters, and high-resolution screens has expanded the potential of laparoscopy. These developments have increased the interest of pediatric surgeons in laparoscopy as a modality for reconstruction in patients with CDO [43]. Procedures considered complicated in the past have become both practical and effective [3, 4, 44, 45].

The first laparoscopic reconstruction for duodenal atresia was performed in 2001 by Bax N. [46]. In 2002, Gluer S. et al. described a case of laparoscopy reconstruction for annular pancreas and malrotation [47]; however, the initial experience of endoscopic duodenal anastomoses was overshadowed by a high number of conversions to laparotomy and postoperative anastomotic leakage. Van der Zee D. even announced a temporary moratorium on performing minimally invasive interventions in patients with duodenal atresia due to excessive complications. He restricted the use of laparoscopic duodenal atresia repair to centers with extensive experience in pediatric laparoscopic surgery and intracorporeal suturing [3, 4, 48]. As more experience was gained, the operative technique was refined, and duodenal anastomosis could be performed with acceptable long-term results in this advanced center. Other studies also demonstrated the high efficacy and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of duodenal atresia [49, 50, 51]. Razumovsky A., one of the pioneers of neonatal minimally invasive surgery, has the greatest experience in performing laparoscopic duodenal anastomoses in Russia [52].

Several progressive surgical schools have presented modifications of laparoscopic duodenal anastomoses. Son T. et al. reported a side-to-side duodenal anastomosis [53]. Muensterer O. and Lacher M. showed that duodenojejunal side-to-side anastomosis can be performed to restore the lumen of the duodenum [54].

Laparoscopy allows for faster postoperative recovery and better cosmetic results. This knowledge promotes widespread use of laparoscopy in newborns and infants. However, laparoscopic duodenal anastomosis is considered the most demanding surgical procedure in pediatric surgery [48, 55]. Therefore, this procedure is restricted to be performed in advanced centers specializing in minimally invasive surgery in neonates [48]. Duodenal stenosis is most often located in the second (descending) portion of the duodenum [15]. Historically, such patients were treated surgically with laparotomy or laparoscopy. Despite the results of such treatment being satisfactory, these techniques are fraught with risks associated with the operation itself and general anesthesia, and do not show good cosmetical results [35, 46, 56]. In addition, the risk of adhesive intestinal obstruction in infants after laparotomy is approximately 6–14% [57] and is absent if the peritoneum is left intact, as, for example, with transoral access.

4.2 Endoluminal access

Endoluminal techniques for the treatment of duodenal obstruction based on principles of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) were first introduced for adults in 1980 by Turnbull A. et al. using endoscopic biopsy forceps for membrane resection [58]. The first case of endoluminal surgery for congenital duodenal stenosis in children was reported by Okamatsu T. et al. In 1989, the author presented a successful case of endoscopic membranectomy in a 2-month-old child [59].

This technology involved the introduction of a small diameter occlusion catheter (5 Fr) into the opening of the fenestrated membrane, which, after inflating the balloon, stretches toward the stomach. The membrane spread on the catheter is dissected with a T-shaped incision using an electrode. Several other methods of duodenal web dissection have been reported, including the use of a sphincterotome [60, 61] and laser ablation [34, 62].

Several small case series demonstrated good results of partial CDO treatment using endoluminal balloon dilation [63, 64, 65]. The largest number of patients in the series included 6 children in whom balloon dilation was used as the first line of treatment [66]. The largest study of endoscopic membranotomy included 15 patients in whom dissection of the membrane was performed with a sphincterotome. One complication, perforation of the duodenum, was reported in this series [67].

There are several limitations to endoluminal methods in patients with partial CDO. The first one is a combination of duodenal stenosis with a more distal small bowel obstruction. Goring J. et al. described such a patient who subsequently underwent laparotomy and small bowel anastomosis [67]. The second limitation is annular pancreas, which reduces the chances of long-term success after endoluminal treatment [66]. Therefore, an abdominal MRI is recommended to assess the anatomy of the pancreas before transoral procedures [67]. If an annular pancreas is revealed on MRI, the use of endoluminal treatments is contraindicated.

4.3 Operative techniques

4.3.1 Laparoscopic Membranectomy and Heineke-Mikulicz Duodenoplasty

The patient is placed in the reverse trendelenburg position at the lower edge of the operating table to provide convenient access to the operating field for the surgeon (Figure 4). Veress needle access is performed and three laparoscopic ports are installed: (1) optical port in the left iliac region, (2) manipulation port in the left upper quadrant, (3) manipulation port in the right iliac region. The optical port is placed lower to allow for better visualization of the duodenal malformation (Figure 5). This port placement allows enough working space to perform duodenal anastomosis.

Figure 4.

Positioning of the patient for a laparoscopic reconstruction of duodenal atresia.

Figure 5.

Placement of the laparoscopic ports.

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with CO2 is used: pressure of 8 mmHg and flow of 2 L/min. The first step is a transabdominal suture around the round ligament of the liver to fixate the liver to the abdominal wall. This maneuver improves visualization of the duodenum, especially its distal part. The hepatic flexure of the colon is mobilized using blunt or sharp dissection of its ligaments. A “no-touch” technique is preferred, capturing the surrounding tissues without crushing the intestinal walls with a clamp. Mobilization should be carried out widely enough to separate the transverse colon from the duodenum and allow for sufficient access to the duodenum. Importantly, as the duodenum bends around the pancreas it can be located either anteriorly or posteriorly, depending on the patient’s unique anatomy. If the bulb of the duodenum is significantly stretched, a transparietal traction suture can be placed on the anterior wall of the bulb and brought out through the skin, allowing for mobilization of the distal portion of the duodenum (Figure 6). Lysis of adhesions can be performed with blunt dissection.

Figure 6.

Operative field with the optical port (1), trocars for manipulative instruments (2), traction suture over the round ligament of the liver (3), and traction suture on the proximal part of the duodenum (4).

The location of the obstruction must be precisely defined. The obstruction can result from an annular pancreas, duodenal stenosis, or true duodenal atresia. At the time of mobilization of the distal portion of the duodenum, the gastrointestinal tract can be assessed for malrotation [68]. After that, the proximal and distal parts of the duodenum are identified and mobilized (Figure 7). Further steps depend on the type of duodenal anomaly.

Figure 7.

Duodenal atresia type 1.

The findings determining the type of reconstruction are (a) membranous, type I, or (b) other forms of obstruction with separation of the muscle membranes of disconnected segments, including duodenal atresia with (type II) or without (type III) a fibrous cord and an annular pancreas. Membranous forms of duodenal obstruction are repaired using a longitudinal duodenotomy over the site of obstruction with incision of the proximal and distal portions of the duodenum (Figures 8 and 9). Then, the membrane is captured with a delicate atraumatic clamp and excised circularly with coagulation micro-scissors (Figures 10 and 11). Particular care is necessary for dissecting the duodenum at the ampulla of Vater [69]. The final step of the operation is transverse suturing of the duodenal lumen with interrupted absorbable sutures (Figures 12 and 13).

Figure 8.

Longitudinal duodenotomy over the site of obstruction.

Figure 9.

Duodenum after its excision. 1 - proximal part, 2 – Distal part, 3 – Duodenal membrane.

Figure 10.

Laparoscopic excision of the duodenal web.

Figure 11.

Lumen of the duodenum after resection of the duodenal web.

Figure 12.

Suturing of the longitudinal duodenotomy in a transverse fashion.

Figure 13.

Duodenal anastomosis after resection of the duodenal web.

4.3.2 Laparoscopic Kimura anastomosis

In patients with duodenal atresia type II and type III, a diamond-shaped Kimura anastomosis is performed (Figure 14). The technique of laparoscopic diamond-shaped anastomosis does not differ from the open procedure (Figure 15) [39, 70]. A transverse duodenotomy of the dilated proximal part of the duodenum and a longitudinal incision of the distal collapsed segment are performed using a needle or hook-shaped electrode (Figures 16 and 17). A transparietal traction suture is placed on the proximal portion of the duodenum, which is brought to the anterior abdominal wall to allow for fixation of the bowel to allow for duodenal anastomosis creation.

Figure 14.

Duodenum type 3. 1 – Proximal segment, 2 – Distal segment, 3 – Head of the pancreas.

Figure 15.

A diamond-shaped anastomosis [37].

Figure 16.

Excision of the proximal segment of the duodenum.

Figure 17.

Excision of the distal segment of the duodenum.

The technique of laparoscopic Kimura anastomosis involves placement of separate sutures (PDSII 6/0), on the posterior (Figure 18) and then the anterior wall of the duodenal junction (Figure 19). To achieve the diamond shape, the first suture is placed between the right point of the transverse duodenotomy and the middle of the right part of the longitudinal duodenotomy. Subsequent stitches are placed bilaterally to the right and left of this initial suture so that the final stitches of the posterior wall of the anastomosis are placed between the right and left ends of the transverse incision and the middle of the longitudinal incision on both sides. Thus, the lower triangle of the future diamond-shaped anastomosis is formed. The anterior wall of the anastomosis is created in a similar way, connecting initially the central points of the incisions, and then the peripheral ones. The result of these complicated actions on small objects in a limited field for manipulation is a wide duodenoduodenal anastomosis. Van der Zee D. places the second suture between the left corner of the transverse duodenotomy and the middle of the left edge of the longitudinal duodenotomy (outside-in, inside-out). After tying this stitch, the needle is placed inside the intestinal lumen and a continuous suture is placed on the posterior wall from inside the lumen. The posterior wall of the anastomosis can be easily visualized for a future continuous suture by applying traction to the left stitch.

Figure 18.

Duodenal anastomosis described by Kimura K. et al. [33]. Creation of the posterior wall of the anastomosis.

Figure 19.

Duodenal anastomosis described by Kimura K. et al. [33]. View at the end of the procedure.

At the right end of the suture line on the posterior wall, the needle is brought out and tied with the short end of the first suture. The same thread can be used to perform a continuous suture on the anterior wall of the anastomosis. In cases of an annular pancreas, the anastomosis is created in the form of a “bridge” over the area of ectopic glandular tissue-duodenal “bypass” (Figures 20 and 21). It is important to make sure that this is exactly the horizontal part of the duodenum, not the loop of the jejunum because this can lead to the creation of a blind loop. At the end of the operation, no feeding tube is passed through the area of the anastomosis as there is no need to inspect for other membranes or obstruction sites, given that these are extremely rare (less than 1%) [71]. The anesthesiologist performs the white test (injection of a fat emulsion solution for parenteral nutrition into a pre-installed gastric tube). This maneuver confirms there is no anastomotic leak or intestinal obstruction in the distal part of the small bowel.

Figure 20.

Suturing of the anterior wall of a duodenal anastomosis in patients with an annular pancreas.

Figure 21.

Duodenal “pathway” anastomosis in a patient with an annular pancreas.

4.3.3 Transoral endoscopic membranotomy and balloon dilation

The procedure is performed under general endotracheal anesthesia using a single-channel video gastroscope with a 3.2-mm instrument channel. Before the operation, the remnants of formula and saliva are removed from the stomach with irrigation and aspiration. After passing the pylorus, a dilated superior (first) segment of the duodenum is visualized blindly ending in a membrane with an opening is its center (Figure 22). When using the method of balloon dilation, a CRE Fixed Wire balloon catheter (Boston Scientific Corporation, USA), diameter of 10–11-12 mm and inflation pressure of 3–5-8 atm, is inserted into the opening of the duodenal membrane (Figures 23 and 24). After dilation of the lumen, the endoscope is advanced to the distal portion of the duodenum. Endoscopic membranotomy can also be performed by advancing of a double-lumen catheter designed for sphincterotomy - Minitome double lumen sphincterotome (Cook Medical, USA) with a length of 200 cm—to the location of duodenal stenosis. After the device is activated, mixed current is supplied to it from the electrosurgical unit. Bleeding from the edges of the membrane can be stopped using a soft coagulation mode. After destruction of the membrane, the endoscope is advanced into the distal portion of the duodenum.

Figure 22.

Opening in the duodenal web (arrow) with the balloon catheter CRE fixed wire (Boston Scientific Corporation, USA) inserted.

Figure 23.

Balloon dilation of duodenal stenosis with a catheter CRE fixed wire (Boston Scientific Corporation, USA).

Figure 24.

Area of duodenal stenosis on postoperative day 5 after balloon dilation.

Postoperatively, patients are observed in the intensive and critical care unit until their respiratory and circulatory functions are stabilized. Enteral nutrition is initiated by the end of the first postoperative, as the lumen of the bowel was not opened. Diet advancement is based on tolerance to increasing amounts of nutrition, with gradual increase of nutrition volumes within the first two postoperative days.

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

Laparoscopy, as a less aggressive surgical technique, offers an alternative approach to the treatment of congenital duodenal obstruction, allowing for minimally invasive access and early recovery after the surgery. Since the first report of a successful laparoscopic anastomosis in a patient with duodenal atresia, laparoscopic reconstruction was expected to become a golden standard of congenital duodenal obstruction treatment. However, its complexity and time consumption prevented this technique from being widely used among pediatric surgical centers compared to an open repair. Laparoscopic reconstruction remains the prerogative only for advanced pediatric surgery centers specializing in minimally invasive surgery in neonates. Transoral techniques based on flexible endoscopy have a special place in minimally invasive treatment of partial duodenal obstruction and allow for expansion of the narrow site using a balloon or a sphincterotome with no incision required.

References

  1. 1. Dalla Vecchia LK, Grosfeld JL, West KW, Rescorla FJ, Scherer LR, Engum SA. Intestinal atresia and stenosis: A 25-year experience with 277 cases. Archives of Surgery. 1998;133(5):490-496; discussion 496-7. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.133.5.490
  2. 2. Piper HG, Alesbury J, Waterford SD, Zurakowski D, Jaksic T. Intestinal atresias: Factors affecting clinical outcomes. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2008;43(7):1244-1248. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.09.053
  3. 3. 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. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2017;52(3):498-503. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.08.010
  4. 4. Chiarenza SF, Bucci V, Conighi ML, Zolpi E, Costa L, Fasoli L, et al. Duodenal atresia: Open versus MIS repair-analysis of our experience over the last 12 years. BioMed Research International. 2017;2017:4585360. DOI: 10.1155/2017/4585360
  5. 5. Grosfeld JL, Rescorla FJ. Duodenal atresia and stenosis: Reassessment of treatment and outcome based on antenatal diagnosis, pathologic variance, and long-term follow-up. World Journal of Surgery. 1993;17(3):301-309. DOI: 10.1007/BF01658696
  6. 6. Applebaum H, Sydorak R. Duodenal atresia and stenosis – Annular pancreas. In: Coran AG, Caldamone A, Adzick NS, Krummel TM, Laberge JM, Shamberger R, editors. Pediatric Surgery. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Mosby; 2012. pp. 1051-1057
  7. 7. Eustace S, Connolly B, Blake N. Congenital duodenal obstruction: An approach to diagnosis. European Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 1993;3(5):267-270. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1063557
  8. 8. Sarin YK, Sharma A, Sinha S, Deshpande VP. Duodenal webs: An experience with 18 patients. Journal of Neonatal Surgery. 2012;1(2):20
  9. 9. Cragan JD, Martin ML, Moore CA, Khoury MJ. Descriptive epidemiology of small intestinal atresia, Atlanta, Georgia. Teratology. 1993;48(5):441-450. DOI: 10.1002/tera.1420480508
  10. 10. Bailey PV, Tracy TF Jr, Connors RH, Mooney DP, Lewis JE, Weber TR. Congenital duodenal obstruction: A 32-year review. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 1993;28(1):92-95. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3468(05)80364-1
  11. 11. Buchin PJ, Levy JS, Schullinger JN. Down's syndrome and the gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 1986;8(2):111-114. DOI: 10.1097/00004836-198604000-00002
  12. 12. Freeman SB, Torfs CP, Romitti PA, Royle MH, Druschel C, Hobbs CA, et al. Congenital gastrointestinal defects in down syndrome: A report from the Atlanta and National down Syndrome Projects. Clinical Genetics. 2009;75:180-184. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2008.01110.x
  13. 13. Choudhry MS, Rahman N, Boyd P, Lakhoo K. Duodenal atresia: Associated anomalies, prenatal diagnosis and outcome. Pediatric Surgery International. 2009;25(8):727-730. DOI: 10.1007/s00383-009-2406-y
  14. 14. Bethell GS, Long AM, Knight M, Hall NJ, BAPS-CASS. Congenital duodenal obstruction in the UK: A population-based study. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2020;105(2):178-183. DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-317085
  15. 15. Chen QJ, Gao ZG, Tou JF, Qian YZ, Li MJ, Xiong QX, et al. Congenital duodenal obstruction in neonates: A decade's experience from one center. World Journal of Pediatrics. 2014;10(3):238-244. DOI: 10.1007/s12519-014-0499-4
  16. 16. Zhang W, Lei T, Fu F, Deng Q , Li R, Wang D, et al. Microarray analysis in fetuses with duodenal obstruction: It is not just trisomy 21. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2021;41(3):316-322. DOI: 10.1002/pd.5834
  17. 17. Nabzdyk CS, Chiu B, Jackson CC, Chwals WJ. Management of patients with combined tracheoesophageal fistula, esophageal atresia, and duodenal atresia. International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. 2014;5(12):1288-1291. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2013.09.016
  18. 18. Fragoso AC, Ortiz R, Hernandez F, Olivares P, Martinez L, Tovar JA. Defective upper gastrointestinal function after repair of combined esophageal and duodenal atresia. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2015;50(4):531-534. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.05.029
  19. 19. Ein SH, Palder SB, Filler RM. Babies with esophageal and duodenal atresia: A 30-year review of a multifaceted problem. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2006;41(3):530-532. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.11.061
  20. 20. Dave S, Shi EC. The management of combined oesophageal and duodenal atresia. Pediatric Surgery International. 2004;20(9):689-691. DOI: 10.1007/s00383-004-1274-8
  21. 21. Spigland N, Yazbeck S. Complications associated with surgical treatment of congenital intrinsic duodenal obstruction. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 1990;25(11):1127-1130. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3468(90)90746-v
  22. 22. Mali V, Wagener S, Sharif K, Millar AJ. Foregut atresias and bile duct anomalies: Rare, infrequent or common?! Pediatric Surgery International. 2007;23(9):889-895. DOI: 10.1007/s00383-007-1921-y
  23. 23. Spitz L, Ali M, Brereton RJ. Combined esophageal and duodenal atresia: Experience of 18 patients. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 1981;16(1):4-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3468(81)80105-4
  24. 24. O’Rahilly R, Muller F. Human Embryology and Teratology. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1996. p. 229
  25. 25. Tröbs R. Duodenal atresia–Tandler’s “epithelial plug stage” revisited. Open Journal of Pediatricts. 2019;9:103-110. DOI: 10.4236/ojped.2019.91010
  26. 26. Tandler J. Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des menschlichen Duodenum in frühen Embryonalstadien. Morph Jahrb. 1902;29:187-216
  27. 27. Moore KL, Persaud TV. The digestive system. In: The Developing Human. 8th ed. Vol. 233. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2007. p. 218
  28. 28. Louw JH, Barnard CN. Congenital intestinal atresia; observations on its origin. Lancet. 1955;269(6899):1065-1067. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(55)92852-x
  29. 29. Barnard CN, Louw JH. The genesis of intestinal atresia. Minnesota Medicine. 1956;39(11):745
  30. 30. Mahajan SK, Kashyap R, Chandel UK, Mokta J, Minhas SS. Duodenal diverticulum: Review of literature. The Indian Journal of Surgery. 2004;66:140-145
  31. 31. Gross RE, Chisholm TC. Annular pancreas producing duodenal obstruction : Report of a successfully treated case. Annals of Surgery. 1944;119(5):759-769. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-194405000-00008
  32. 32. Rowe MI, Buckner D, Clatworthy HW Jr. Wind sock web of the duodenum. American Journal of Surgery. 1968;116(3):444-449. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9610(68)90239-0
  33. 33. Gray SW, Skandalakis JE. Embryology for Surgeons. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1972
  34. 34. Gertsch P, Mosimann R. Endoscopic laser treatment of a congenital duodenal diaphragm in an adult. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1984;30(4):253-254. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(84)72399-6
  35. 35. Kimura K, Tsugawa C, Ogawa K, et al. Diamond-shaped anastomosis for congenital duodenal obstruction. Archives of Surgery. 1977;112:1262-1263
  36. 36. Кучеров ЮИ, Дорофеева ЕИ, Жиркова ЮВ, и др. Опыт лечения пациентов с врожденной кишечной непроходимостью в условиях перинатального центра. Детская хирургия. 2009;5:11-16
  37. 37. Мокрушина ОГ, Гераськин АВ, Голоденко НВ, Левитская МВ, Шумихин ВС, Дерунова ВИ. Хирургические аспекты лечения дуоденальной непроходимости у новорожденных. Детская хирургия. 2010;6:8-11
  38. 38. Tan KC, Bianchi A. Circumumbilical incision for pyloromyotomy. The British Journal of Surgery. 1986;73(5):399. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800730529
  39. 39. Kimura K, Mukohara N, Nishijima E, Muraji T, Tsugawa C, Matsumoto Y. Diamond-shaped anastomosis for duodenal atresia: An experience with 44 patients over 15 years. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 1990;25(9):977-979. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3468(90)90241-z
  40. 40. Soutter AD, Askew AA. Transumbilical laparotomy in infants: A novel approach for a wide variety of surgical disease. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2003;38(6):950-952. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3468(03)00131-3
  41. 41. Kozlov Y, Novogilov V, Yurkov P, Podkamenev A, Weber I, Sirkin N. Keyhole approach for repair of congenital duodenal obstruction. European Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2011;21(2):124-127. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1268455
  42. 42. Козлов ЮА, Новожилов ВА, Подкаменев АВ, и др. Опыт использования анастомоза Кимура в хирургическом лечении атрезии двенадцатиперстной кишки. Детская хирургия. 2008;2:11-13
  43. 43. Rothenberg SS. Laparoscopic duodenoduodenostomy for duodenal obstruction in infants and children. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2002;37(7):1088-1089. DOI: 10.1053/jpsu.2002.33882
  44. 44. Mentessidou A, Saxena AK. Laparoscopic repair of duodenal atresia: Systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Surgery. 2017;41(8):2178-2184. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-017-3937-3
  45. 45. Jensen AR, Short SS, Anselmo DM, Torres MB, Frykman PK, Shin CE, et al. Laparoscopic versus open treatment of congenital duodenal obstruction: Multicenter short-term outcomes analysis. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A. 2013;23(10):876-880. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2013.0140
  46. 46. Bax NM, Ure BM, van der Zee DC, van Tuijl I. Laparoscopic duodenoduodenostomy for duodenal atresia. Surgical Endoscopy. 2001;15(2):217. DOI: 10.1007/BF03036283
  47. 47. Glüer S, Petersen C, Ure BM. Simultaneous correction of duodenal atresia due to annular pancreas and malrotation by laparoscopy. European Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2002;12(6):423-425. DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-36855
  48. 48. van der Zee DC. Laparoscopic repair of duodenal atresia: Revisited. World Journal of Surgery. 2011;35(8):1781-1784. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-011-1147-y
  49. 49. Spilde TL, St Peter SD, Keckler SJ, Holcomb GW 3rd, Snyder CL, Ostlie DJ. Open vs laparoscopic repair of congenital duodenal obstructions: A concurrent series. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2008;43(6):1002-1005. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.02.021
  50. 50. Kay S, Yoder S, Rothenberg S. Laparoscopic duodenoduodenostomy in the neonate. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2009;44(5):906-908. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.01.025
  51. 51. Hill S, Koontz CS, Langness SM, Wulkan ML. Laparoscopic versus open repair of congenital duodenal obstruction in infants. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A. 2011;21(10):961-963. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2011.0069
  52. 52. Разумовский АЮ, Мокрушина ОГ. Эндохирургические операции у новорожденных: руководство для врачей. Москва: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2015 344 с
  53. 53. Son TN, Kien HH. Laparoscopic versus open surgery in management of congenital duodenal obstruction in neonates: A single-center experience with 112 cases. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2017;52(12):1949-1951. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.08.064
  54. 54. 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. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A. 2019;29(10):1216-1222. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2019.0057
  55. 55. Parmentier B, Peycelon M, Muller CO, El Ghoneimi A, Bonnard A. Laparoscopic management of congenital duodenal atresia or stenosis: A single-center early experience. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2015;50(11):1833-1836. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.05.007
  56. 56. Козлов ЮА, Новожилов ВА. Лапароскопическая дуоденодуоденостомия в лечении врожденной дуоденальной непроходимости – первоначальный опыт. Детская хирургия. 2013;5:34-37
  57. 57. Lakshminarayanan B, Hughes-Thomas AO, Grant HW. Epidemiology of adhesions in infants and children following open surgery. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery. 2014;23(6):344-348. DOI: 10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.06.005
  58. 58. Turnbull A, Kussin S, Bains M. Radiographic and endoscopic features of a congenital duodenal diaphragm in an adult. A case report and review of the literature. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1980;26(2):46-48. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(80)73268-6
  59. 59. Okamatsu T, Arai K, Yatsuzuka M, Ishikawa M, Matsumura M, Okamoto S, et al. Endoscopic membranectomy for congenital duodenal stenosis in an infant. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 1989;24(4):367-368. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3468(89)80271-4
  60. 60. Torroni F, De Angelis P, Caldaro T, di Abriola GF, Ponticelli A, Bergami G, et al. Endoscopic membranectomy of duodenal diaphragm: Pediatric experience. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2006;63(3):530-531. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2005.10.001
  61. 61. DiMaio CJ, Kamal N, Hogan CM, Midulla PS. Pediatric therapeutic endoscopy: Endoscopic management of a congenital duodenal web. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2014;80(1):166-167. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.03.006
  62. 62. Kay GA, Lobe TE, Custer MD, Hollabaugh RS. Endoscopic laser ablation of obstructing congenital duodenal webs in the newborn: A case report of limited success with criteria for patient selection. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 1992;27(3):279-281. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3468(92)90846-y
  63. 63. van Rijn RR, van Lienden KP, Fortuna TL, D'Alessandro LC, Connolly B, Chait PG. Membranous duodenal stenosis: Initial experience with balloon dilatation in four children. European Journal of Radiology. 2006;59(1):29-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.03.015
  64. 64. Asabe K, Oka Y, Hoshino S, et al. Modification of the endoscopic management of congenital duodenal stenosis. The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics. 2008;50:182-185
  65. 65. Poddar U, Jain V, Yachha SK, Srivastava A. Congenital duodenal web: Successful management with endoscopic dilatation. Endoscopy International Open. 2016;4(3):E238-E241. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-110955
  66. 66. Huang MH, Bian HQ , Liang C, Wei WQ , Duan XF, Yang J. Gastroscopic treatment of membranous duodenal stenosis in infants and children: Report of 6 cases. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2015;50(3):413-416. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.10.045
  67. 67. Goring J, Isoldi S, Sharma S, Torroni F, Marven S, De Angelis P, et al. Natural orifice endoluminal technique (NOEL) for the management of congenital duodenal membranes. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2020;55(2):282-285. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.10.025
  68. 68. Bass KD, Rothenberg SS, Chang JH. Laparoscopic Ladd's procedure in infants with malrotation. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 1998;33(2):279-281. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3468(98)90447-x
  69. 69. Jona J, Belin R. Duodenal anomalies and the ampulla of Vater. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics. 1976;143:565-569
  70. 70. Weber TR, Lewis JE, Mooney D, Connors R. Duodenal atresia: A comparison of techniques of repair. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 1986;21(12):1133-1136. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3468(86)90025-4
  71. 71. St Peter SD, Little DC, Barsness KA, Copeland DR, Calkins CM, Yoder S, et al. Should we be concerned about jejunoileal atresia during repair of duodenal atresia? Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A. 2010;20(9):773-775. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2010.0173

Written By

Yury Kozlov, Elizaveta Bokova and Simon Poloyan

Submitted: 06 December 2022 Reviewed: 23 December 2022 Published: 13 January 2023