z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Duodenal Hematoma Following EGD
Author(s) -
Sahn Benjamin,
Anupindi Sudha A.,
Dadhania Neha J.,
Kelsen Judith R.,
Nance Michael L.,
Mamula Petar
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition
Language(s) - Uncategorized
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.206
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1536-4801
pISSN - 0277-2116
DOI - 10.1097/mpg.0000000000000564
Subject(s) - medicine , esophagogastroduodenoscopy , supine position , sedation , incidence (geometry) , hematoma , complication , duodenum , surgery , endoscopy , physics , optics
Background: Duodenal hematoma (DH) is a rare complication of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with duodenal biopsy and uncommon, but better described following blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). We aimed to describe DH incidence and investigate risk factors for DH development post‐EGD and compare its features to those post‐BAT. Methods: Multiple electronic databases were searched for the diagnosis of DH from 2000 to 2012. Inclusion criteria were patients 0 to 21 years of age who developed a DH following EGD with biopsy or BAT. Exclusion criteria were DH secondary to any other mechanism, EGD performed at another medical center, and insufficient information in the electronic medical record to determine treatments or outcomes. Results: A total of 14 post‐EGD and 15 post‐BAT patients with DH were included in the study. There were 26,905 EGDs with duodenal biopsies performed during the study period, for an incidence of 1:1922 procedures. Thirteen of 14 (93%) post‐EGD DH events occurred between 2007 and 2012 ( P < 0.001). The proportion of procedures performed under general anesthesia versus moderate sedation, and performed in the supine position versus left lateral decubitus were close to but did not reach statistical significance. DH‐related complications and time to hematoma resolution was similar between groups. Conclusions: In a 13‐year study period, 14 patients developed DH after EGD, for an incidence of 1:1922. Method of sedation and supine positioning of the patient during endoscopy warrant further investigation as potential risks. The clinical course and time to recovery with conservative management are similar between patients with EGD and BAT‐induced DH.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here