BACKGROUND: Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair and innovative, complex repairs with adjunctive measures(CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak is sparse and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes nonexistent. We hypothesized primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates, however CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level-1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries(1/2010-12/2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: primary repair alone(PRA) vs CRAM(any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy). RESULTS: The sample(n = 861) was primarily young(33 years) male(84%) with penetrating injuries(77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. CRAM were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates(CRAM 21% vs PRA 8%, p < 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more IR drains, prolonged NPO and LOS, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA(all p < 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, NPO duration, need for IR drainage, HLOS, or mortality between PRA leak vs CRAM leak patients(all p > 0.05). CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more GI complications, and longer duration until leak resolution(all p < 0.05). PRA was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grade II-IV, damage control, and BMI had higher odds of leak(all p < 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grade IV-V injuries repaired by PRA. CONCLUSIONS: CRAM did not prevent duodenal leaks and moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Multicenter retrospective comparative study