INTRODUCTION: The therapy of esophageal perforation is still challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the etiology, specific treatment, and outcome of esophageal disruption in order to generate an optimal therapeutic approach to improve patient's outcome. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of 120 consecutive patients with esophageal perforation treated within 10 years. RESULTS: Iatrogenic perforation was the most frequent cause of esophageal perforation (58.3 %); Boerhaave's syndrome was detected in 15 cases (6.8 %). Surgery was performed in 66 patients (55 %), 17 (14 %) patients received conservative treatment and 37 (31 %) patients underwent endoscopic stenting after tumorous perforation. Statistically significant impact on mean survival had Boerhaave's syndrome (p = 0.005), initial sepsis (p = 0.002), pleural effusion/empyema (p = 0.001), mediastinitis (p = 0.003), peritonitis (p = 0.001), and redo-surgery (p = 0.000). Overall mortality rate was 11.7 %, in the esophagectomy group 17 % and in the patients with Boerhaave's syndrome 33.3 %. CONCLUSIONS: An approach considering etiology and extent of perforation, diagnostic delay, and septic status is required to improve patient's outcome. Primary repair is feasible in patients without intrinsic esophageal disease and evidence of sepsis. The greater the diagnostic delay, the more the destruction of the esophageal wall especially in the case of septic esophageal disease, thus the stronger the argument for esophagectomy if anatomically and/or oncologically possible.
INTRODUCTION: The therapy of esophageal perforation is still challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the etiology, specific treatment, and outcome of esophageal disruption in order to generate an optimal therapeutic approach to improve patient's outcome. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of 120 consecutive patients with esophageal perforation treated within 10 years. RESULTS: Iatrogenic perforation was the most frequent cause of esophageal perforation (58.3 %); Boerhaave's syndrome was detected in 15 cases (6.8 %). Surgery was performed in 66 patients (55 %), 17 (14 %) patients received conservative treatment and 37 (31 %) patients underwent endoscopic stenting after tumorous perforation. Statistically significant impact on mean survival had Boerhaave's syndrome (p = 0.005), initial sepsis (p = 0.002), pleural effusion/empyema (p = 0.001), mediastinitis (p = 0.003), peritonitis (p = 0.001), and redo-surgery (p = 0.000). Overall mortality rate was 11.7 %, in the esophagectomy group 17 % and in the patients with Boerhaave's syndrome 33.3 %. CONCLUSIONS: An approach considering etiology and extent of perforation, diagnostic delay, and septic status is required to improve patient's outcome. Primary repair is feasible in patients without intrinsic esophageal disease and evidence of sepsis. The greater the diagnostic delay, the more the destruction of the esophageal wall especially in the case of septic esophageal disease, thus the stronger the argument for esophagectomy if anatomically and/or oncologically possible.
Authors: Jeffrey L Port; Michael S Kent; Robert J Korst; Matthew Bacchetta; Nasser K Altorki Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Andreas Fischer; Oliver Thomusch; Stefan Benz; Ernst von Dobschuetz; Peter Baier; Ulrich T Hopt Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Peter D Siersema; Marjolein Y V Homs; Jelle Haringsma; Huug W Tilanus; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Fausto Biancari; Tuomas Tauriainen; Tatu Ylikotila; Misa Kokkonen; Jukka Rintala; Elisa Mäkäräinen-Uhlbäck; Vesa Koivukangas; Juha Saarnio Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rym El Khoury; Ezra N Teitelbaum; Joel M Sternbach; Nathaniel J Soper; Carla B Harmath; John E Pandolfino; Peter J Kahrilas; Eric S Hungness Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sheraz R Markar; Hugh Mackenzie; Tom Wiggins; Alan Askari; Omar Faiz; Giovanni Zaninotto; George B Hanna Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: S Weiterer; K Schmidt; M Deininger; A Ulrich; U Tochtermann; R Eberhardt; S Hofer; M A Weigand; T Brenner Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 1.041