BACKGROUND: Treatment of esophageal perforation remains controversial and recommendations vary from initially non-operative to aggressive surgical management. Several factors are responsible for this life-threatening event, which has led to more individualized treatment ensuring adequate pleuromediastinal drainage with sufficient irrigation. We analyzed our data, evaluating morbidity and mortality in this selective approach. METHODS: During 1985 to 2001, 17 of the 38 patients with esophageal perforation treated in our hospital underwent primarily a thoracotomy, wide drainage and debridement of chest/ mediastinum and enteral hyperalimentation. Twenty-one patients (55%) initially were treated non-operatively (NPO, nasogastric tube, hyperalimentation, antibiotics and chest tube), but surgery was required in 9 patients (43%). RESULTS: Most perforations were iatrogenic (45%; 17/38) followed by spontaneous perforations (32%; 12/38). Cervical perforations were managed earlier (< 24 h) than thoracic tears, 8/10 (80%) and 17/28 (61%) respectively. Initial conservative treatment failed in all spontaneous ruptures and more in thoracic lesions (62%) than in cervical lesions (13%). Most patients with thoracic perforations and 'free' intrathoracic contamination underwent primary surgery. Surgery with adequate drainage (n = 23) was based on signs of sepsis, empyema and progression of pneumomediastinum/thorax. Mortality occurred in one patient (3%), initially treated conservatively. Median intensive care and duration of hospitalization were not different between the conservative (5 and 7 days, respectively) and the primary surgical approach (21 and 27 days, respectively), but were higher after secondary surgery (13 and 50 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous esophageal perforations require early surgical exploration with drainage and irrigation of mediastinum and pleural cavity, while most iatrogenic lesions can be managed conservatively. Cervical perforations can be treated adequately non-operatively, but thoracic perforations often require surgical intervention.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of esophageal perforation remains controversial and recommendations vary from initially non-operative to aggressive surgical management. Several factors are responsible for this life-threatening event, which has led to more individualized treatment ensuring adequate pleuromediastinal drainage with sufficient irrigation. We analyzed our data, evaluating morbidity and mortality in this selective approach. METHODS: During 1985 to 2001, 17 of the 38 patients with esophageal perforation treated in our hospital underwent primarily a thoracotomy, wide drainage and debridement of chest/ mediastinum and enteral hyperalimentation. Twenty-one patients (55%) initially were treated non-operatively (NPO, nasogastric tube, hyperalimentation, antibiotics and chest tube), but surgery was required in 9 patients (43%). RESULTS: Most perforations were iatrogenic (45%; 17/38) followed by spontaneous perforations (32%; 12/38). Cervical perforations were managed earlier (< 24 h) than thoracic tears, 8/10 (80%) and 17/28 (61%) respectively. Initial conservative treatment failed in all spontaneous ruptures and more in thoracic lesions (62%) than in cervical lesions (13%). Most patients with thoracic perforations and 'free' intrathoracic contamination underwent primary surgery. Surgery with adequate drainage (n = 23) was based on signs of sepsis, empyema and progression of pneumomediastinum/thorax. Mortality occurred in one patient (3%), initially treated conservatively. Median intensive care and duration of hospitalization were not different between the conservative (5 and 7 days, respectively) and the primary surgical approach (21 and 27 days, respectively), but were higher after secondary surgery (13 and 50 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous esophageal perforations require early surgical exploration with drainage and irrigation of mediastinum and pleural cavity, while most iatrogenic lesions can be managed conservatively. Cervical perforations can be treated adequately non-operatively, but thoracic perforations often require surgical intervention.
Authors: P S Rajan; S Bansal; N S Balaji; S Rajapandian; R Parthasarathi; P Senthilnathan; P Praveenraj; C Palanivelu Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-03-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Andrej Udelnow; Markus Huber-Lang; Markus Juchems; Karl Träger; Doris Henne-Bruns; Peter Würl Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Umer F Malik; Ryan Young; Hein D Pham; Alisha McCon; Brenda Shen; Richard Landres; Ahmed Mahmoud Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Michael Hermansson; Jan Johansson; Tomas Gudbjartsson; Göran Hambreus; Per Jönsson; Ramon Lillo-Gil; Ulrika Smedh; Thomas Zilling Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 2.102