Case Report Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Clin Cases. Sep 16, 2023; 11(26): 6298-6303
Published online Sep 16, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i26.6298
Successful resolution of gastric perforation caused by a severe complication of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: A case report
Byeong Gwan Noh, Myunghee Yoon, Young Mok Park, Hyung-Il Seo, Jae Kyun Park, Department of Surgery, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan 49241, South Korea
Suk Kim, Seung Baek Hong, Department of Radiology, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan 49241, South Korea
Moon Won Lee, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan 49241, South Korea
ORCID number: Byeong Gwan Noh (0000-0002-7764-9516); Myunghee Yoon (0000-0001-9271-7241); Young Mok Park (0000-0002-4165-3054); Hyung-Il Seo (0000-0002-4132-7662); Suk Kim (0000-0003-3268-1763); Seung Baek Hong (0000-0002-1731-0430); Jae Kyun Park (0000-0001-6662-3065); Moon Won Lee (0000-0002-8411-6398).
Author contributions: Noh BG, Yoon M, Park YM, Seo HI, Kim S, Hong SB, Park JK, and Lee MW contributed to the acquisition of data for this study; Noh BG analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript; Yoon Mh designed the case report; and all authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Supported by the Clinical Research Grant from Pusan National University Hospital in 2023.
Informed consent statement: Informed written consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this report and any accompanying images.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.
CARE Checklist (2016) statement: The authors have read the CARE Checklist (2016), and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the CARE Checklist (2016).
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Myunghee Yoon, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Surgery, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, 179 Gudeok-Ro, Seo-Gu, Busan 49241, South Korea. ymh@pusan.ac.kr
Received: June 21, 2023
Peer-review started: June 21, 2023
First decision: July 28, 2023
Revised: August 11, 2023
Accepted: August 23, 2023
Article in press: August 23, 2023
Published online: September 16, 2023

Abstract
BACKGROUND

Pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) rarely causes critical gastric necrosis and perforation, which may develop when pancreatic WON squashes against the stomach. The Atlanta 2012 guidelines were introduced for acute pancreatitis and its related clinical entities. However, there are few reported cases describing the clinical course and resolution of pancreatic WON.

CASE SUMMARY

We report the case of a 45-year-old man who presented to the urgent emergency department with gastric perforation caused by a severe complication of pancreatic WON on computed tomography. The patient underwent an emergency distal pancreatectomy, splenectomy, and gastric wedge resection. Postoperative findings showed re-perforation of the gastric wall at a previously resected margin. Furthermore, endoscopic examination revealed an ulcerative area with a defect in the fundus. After diagnostic endoscopy, endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure was performed, and continuous suction was transferred over all tissues in contact with the sponge surface. The patient recovered without any further complications and was discharged in good condition at postoperative week 8. No recurrence occurred during the 6-mo follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

When managing a patient with serious gastric perforation complicated by pancreatic WON, a multidisciplinary treatment approach should be considered.

Key Words: Acute necrotizing pancreatitis, Endoscopy, Vacuum assisted closure, Gastric rupture, Surgery, Case report

Core Tip: Pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) rarely causes critical gastric necrosis and perforation. Cases of successful resolution of gastric perforation complicated by pancreatic WON are hardly encountered. Due to their rarity, discussing each clinical experience is necessary.



INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) developing in the course of necrotizing pancreatitis occurs 4 or more weeks after its onset[1]. Although systemic inflammation commonly wanes 14 d after the onset of symptoms, infected necrosis progresses in approximately 30% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis[2]. Gastric complication related to pancreatic WON is a rare complication of acute pancreatitis. To date, cases of gastric perforation, a serious complication of pancreatic WON, are hardly encountered and similar cases to ours are few[3-5]. Successful resolution in cases of gastric perforation complicated by pancreatic WON is hardly seen. Due to their rarity, discussing each clinical experience is necessary. Moreover, we are eager that clinicians will gain a better understanding of the clinical course of gastric complications related to WON.

CASE PRESENTATION
Chief complaints

A 45-year-old man, drinking at least 3 times a week for 3 mo due to social and personal issues, presented with abdominal pain for 21 d.

History of present illness

The patient reported no present illness.

History of past illness

The patient reported no past illness.

Personal and family history

The patient reported no relevant medical or family history.

Physical examination

Upon presentation, the patient’s vital signs were stable. However, he showed paleness. Physical examination revealed signs of peritoneal irrigation such as a distended abdomen with rigidity and tenderness in the epigastric region.

Laboratory examinations

Table 1 reveals biochemistry values upon admission.

Table 1 Biochemistry values upon admission.
Value
Unit
Reference range
On admission
White blood cell count109/uL3.8-11.012.78
Neutrophil count109/uL1.5-7.09.25
Hemoglobing/dL13.5-17.58.40
Hematocrit%39.0-53.025.00
Platelet count109/uL140-420697.00
C-reactive proteinmg/dL0-0.59.24
Lactate dehydrogenaseU/L135-225274.00
Lactic acidmmol/L0.7-2.52.20
Sodiummmol/L138-148119.00
Potassiummmol/L3.5-5.33.69
Serum amylaseU/L36-12829.30
Serum lipaseU/L22-5180.10
Imaging examinations

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) showed, adjacent to the huge WON, wall defect, demonstrating a perforation in the stomach fundus and splenic infarction. Contrast-enhanced CT scanning demonstrated the huge WON at the intra- and extrapancreatic areas (Figure 1A and B).

Figure 1
Figure 1 Abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography images in a 45-year-old man. A: Adjacent to the huge walled-off necrosis, there is a wall defect, demonstrating perforation of the stomach fundus (arrowheads) and splenic infarction (white arrow); B: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scanning demonstrated the huge walled-off necrosis at the intra- (arrowheads) and extrapancreatic areas (white arrows); C: Axial view of contrast-enhanced CT image; D: Coronary view of portal venous phase CT on postoperative day 18 shows significant wall defect on previous staple line (arrowheads); E and F: Axial and coronary views of portal venous phase CT at the 3-mo follow-up. CT images show improved process of loculated fluid collection with air bubble at pancreatic bed and left subphrenic space.
FINAL DIAGNOSIS

Based on the preoperative CT and histopathology results, the final diagnosis was gastric perforation caused by a severe complication of pancreatic WON.

TREATMENT

Ceftriaxone and metronidazole were initially administered. After identifying the organisms, piperacillin-tazobactam, fluconazole, and vancomycin were administered after consultation with infectious disease specialists. Postoperative serum amylase and lipase levels were within the normal range. Drain fluid amylase was 1052 U/L at postoperative day (POD) 1 and 17.6 U/L at POD 7. After necrosectomy, the patient received supportive medical treatment, including parenteral nutrition and diet, starting on POD 7. Thereafter, the patient suddenly experienced unsuspected abdominal discomfort at POD 18. Follow-up CT (Figure 1C and D) and endoscopy revealed a 3-cm gastric perforation at the anastomotic site (Figure 2A). Reoperation was not an option due to severe inflammation. Based on discussions with gastroenterologists, endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) was performed, and continuous suction was applied to the perforated site through a nasogastric drainage tube with a polyurethane sponge (KCI Inc., San Antonio, TX, United States) (Figure 2B). Surgical drain was removed due to maintaining a negative pressure on sponge. Drain fluid amylase level was 3.0 U/L and had an output of < 20 mL. EVAC treatment was continued for 3 wk with sponge exchange every 72 h until the wound cavity had healed (Figure 2C and D). Follow-up upper gastrointestinal series showed no contrast leakage from the stomach (Figure 2E). The patient was discharged in good condition at postoperative week 8.

Figure 2
Figure 2 Treatment. A: 45-year-old man is diagnosed with a 3-cm gastric perforation at the anastomosis site on postoperative day 18; B: A polyurethane sponge is inserted into the cavity of the anastomotic leak with nasogastric continuous suction; C: The perforation site is downsized with granulation tissue during the fourth endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC); D: The cavity is closed after seven EVAC procedures; E: Follow-up upper gastrointestinal radiography shows no contrast leakage from the stomach.
OUTCOME AND FOLLOW-UP

At the 3-mo follow-up, CT showed significant improvement (Figure 1E and F). The patient was followed up as an outpatient for 6 mo without showing recurrence or readmission event including glucose control, and is doing well at work after getting a job.

DISCUSSION

The Atlanta Symposium (2012) introduced guidelines to globalize the definitions of acute pancreatitis and related clinical entities[6]. Of all the entities, necrotizing pancreatitis most commonly manifests as necrosis involving both the pancreatic and peripancreatic tissues[7]. Pancreatic necrosis constitutes substantial additional morbidity, with mortality rates as high as 20%-30%[8]. Surgical volumes of interventions have significantly decreased over the years, as minimally invasive strategies have proven effective[9]. However, emergency surgery, irrespective of time, is indicated for cases of gastrointestinal perforation caused by necrotizing pancreatitis[10]. Pancreatic WON is a mature, encapsulated, acute necrotic collection with a well-defined inflammatory wall observed on contrast-enhanced CT. Our patient showed a heterogeneous, fully encapsulated collection with small air pockets inside the cyst and near the peritoneal space. Conventional management of infected WON depends on the availability of expertise and severity of the comorbid medical status. Endoscopic drainage is a commonly used procedure in patients without gastrointestinal perforation. However, there is a high complication rate and longer hospital stay associated with drainage procedures[11]. From the point of view of surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis, a previous report has emphasized that formal resection should be avoided to lower the event of bleeding and fistula formation and protect normal tissue. Thus, repeated debridements with continuous drainage were commonly performed. However, those procedures could be usually associated with immediate and long-term complications such as gastrointestinal perforation, infection, organ failure, and fistula. Morbidity rates of 34%-95% have been reported[7,9]. In our case, we initially performed formal distal pancreatectomy and adjacent necrotic tissue resection with surgical drainage (Figure 3). Cholecystectomy was not performed because there was no evidence of gallstone pancreatitis. Regarding gastric perforation with pancreatic WON, there are no surgical guidelines due to the rarity of this disease entity. We suggest that formal resection would be a better procedure for removing necrotic tissue as much as possible without further surgical debridement. Reperforation occurred during postoperative care with proper conservative care, including nutritional support and antibacterial therapy with antifungal agents. In terms of complications, suitable treatment in patients with gastric perforation requires collaboration among surgeons, radiologists, and gastroenterologists. Endoscopic closure techniques are promising alternatives to surgical treatment[12]. A retrospective study including 71 patients compared stent placement with EVAC for nonsurgical closure of intrathoracic leakage. The overall closure rate was higher in the EVAC group (84.4%) than in the stent group (53.8%). EVAC appears to be an effective alternative to other methods for treating anastomotic leaks[13]. After diagnostic endoscopy, the sponge was placed at the leakage site and released using a pusher. Our patient changed sponges seven times over 3 wk. After successful resolution, the patient was initiated on an oral diet without complications. Clinical cases showing resolution of pancreatic WON with gastric perforation is hardly reported. Therefore, discussing multidisciplinary clinical approaches is essential.

Figure 3
Figure 3 Surgical specimen after distal pancreatectomy, splenectomy, and gastric wedge resection. Note that the pancreatic walled-off necrosis is ruptured during operation. Each specimen is resected separately.
CONCLUSION

Encountering a patient with serious gastric perforation complicated by pancreatic WON, formal distal pancreatectomy, adjacent necrotic tissue resection, and surgical drainage with a multidisciplinary treatment approach could be considerable options for improving the therapeutic outcome.

Footnotes

Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.

Peer-review model: Single blind

Specialty type: Surgery

Country/Territory of origin: South Korea

Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification

Grade A (Excellent): 0

Grade B (Very good): B

Grade C (Good): C, C, C

Grade D (Fair): 0

Grade E (Poor): E

P-Reviewer: Angst E, United States; Cabezuelo AS, Spain; Giacomelli L, Italy S-Editor: Chen YL L-Editor: Wang TQ P-Editor: Chen YL

References
1.  Beger HG, Rau BM. Severe acute pancreatitis: Clinical course and management. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:5043-5051.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 164]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 171]  [Article Influence: 10.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, Boermeester MA, Nieuwenhuijs VB, van Goor H, Dejong CH, Schaapherder AF, Gooszen HG; Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group. Timing and impact of infections in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 2009;96:267-273.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 224]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 206]  [Article Influence: 13.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
3.  Rieger A, Bachmann J, Schulte-Frohlinde E, Burzin M, Nährig J, Friess H, Martignoni ME. Total gastric necrosis subsequent to acute pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2012;41:325-327.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 6]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5]  [Article Influence: 0.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
4.  Madhyastha SP, Banda GR, Acharya RV, Balaraju G. Spontaneous rupture of pancreatic pseudocyst into the stomach. BMJ Case Rep. 2021;14.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1]  [Article Influence: 0.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
5.  Bansal A, Gupta P, Singh H, Samanta J, Mandavdhare H, Sharma V, Sinha SK, Dutta U, Kochhar R. Gastrointestinal complications in acute and chronic pancreatitis. JGH Open. 2019;3:450-455.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 17]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20]  [Article Influence: 4.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
6.  Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Gooszen HG, Johnson CD, Sarr MG, Tsiotos GG, Vege SS; Acute Pancreatitis Classification Working Group. Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut. 2013;62:102-111.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4134]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3699]  [Article Influence: 336.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (38)]
7.  Freeman ML, Werner J, van Santvoort HC, Baron TH, Besselink MG, Windsor JA, Horvath KD, vanSonnenberg E, Bollen TL, Vege SS; International Multidisciplinary Panel of Speakers and Moderators. Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: summary of a multidisciplinary consensus conference. Pancreas. 2012;41:1176-1194.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 274]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 243]  [Article Influence: 20.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
8.  Yang Y, Zhang Y, Wen S, Cui Y. The optimal timing and intervention to reduce mortality for necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. World J Emerg Surg. 2023;18:9.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Kokosis G, Perez A, Pappas TN. Surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis: an overview. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:16106-16112.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 54]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 41]  [Article Influence: 4.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  El Boukili I, Boschetti G, Belkhodja H, Kepenekian V, Rousset P, Passot G. Update: Role of surgery in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. J Visc Surg. 2017;154:413-420.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 6]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6]  [Article Influence: 0.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Hookey LC, Debroux S, Delhaye M, Arvanitakis M, Le Moine O, Devière J. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections in 116 patients: a comparison of etiologies, drainage techniques, and outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:635-643.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 234]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 253]  [Article Influence: 14.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
12.  Rogalski P, Daniluk J, Baniukiewicz A, Wroblewski E, Dabrowski A. Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal perforations, leaks and fistulas. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:10542-10552.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 50]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 43]  [Article Influence: 4.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
13.  Brangewitz M, Voigtländer T, Helfritz FA, Lankisch TO, Winkler M, Klempnauer J, Manns MP, Schneider AS, Wedemeyer J. Endoscopic closure of esophageal intrathoracic leaks: stent versus endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure, a retrospective analysis. Endoscopy. 2013;45:433-438.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 138]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 143]  [Article Influence: 13.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]