Literature DB >> 28881905

Perforated esophageal intervention focus (PERF) study: a multi-center examination of contemporary treatment.

J T Ali1, R D Rice2, E A David3, J D Spicer4, J J Dubose5, L Bonavina6, S Siboni7, T A O'Callaghan8, X Luo-Owen8, S Harrison9, C G Ball10, J Bini11, G A Vercruysse12, D Skarupa13, C C Miller14, A L Estrera14, K G Khalil14.   

Abstract

The treatment of esophageal perforation (EP) remains a significant clinical challenge. While a number of investigators have previously documented efficient approaches, these were mostly single-center experiences reported prior to the introduction of newer technologies: specifically endoluminal stents. This study was designed to document contemporary practice in the diagnosis and management of EP at multiple institutions around the world and includes early clinical outcomes. A five-year (2009-2013) multicenter retrospective review of management and outcomes for patients with thoracic or abdominal esophageal perforation was conducted. Demographics, etiology, diagnostic modalities, treatments, subsequent early outcomes as well as morbidity and mortality were captured and analyzed. During the study period, 199 patients from 10 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe were identified. Mechanisms of perforation included Boerhaave syndrome (60, 30.1%), iatrogenic injury (65, 32.6%), and penetrating trauma (25, 12.6%). Perforation was isolated to the thoracic segment alone in 124 (62.3%), with 62 (31.2%) involving the thoracoabdominal esophagus. Mean perforation length was 2.5 cm. Observation was selected as initial management in 65 (32.7%), with only two failures. Direct operative intervention was initial management in 65 patients (32.6%), while 29 (14.6%) underwent esophageal stent coverage. Compared to operative intervention, esophageal stent patients were significantly more likely to be older (61.3 vs. 48.3 years old, P < 0.001) and have sustained iatrogenic mechanisms of esophageal perforation (48.3% vs.15.4%). Secondary intervention requirement for patients with perforation was 33.7% overall (66). Complications included sepsis (56, 28.1%), pneumonia (34, 17.1%) and multi-organ failure (23, 11.6%). Overall mortality was 15.1% (30). In contemporary practice, diagnostic and management approaches to esophageal perforation vary widely. Despite the introduction of endoluminal strategies, it continues to carry a high risk of mortality, morbidity, and need for secondary intervention. A concerted multi-institutional, prospectively collected database is ideal for further investigation.
© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  drainage; endoscopy; esophageal perforation; esophagostomy; stents; wounds and injuries

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28881905     DOI: 10.1093/dote/dox093

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Esophagus        ISSN: 1120-8694            Impact factor:   3.429


  7 in total

1.  Minimally invasive surgical management of spontaneous esophageal perforation (Boerhaave's syndrome).

Authors:  Jessie A Elliott; Louise Buckley; Mohamed Albagir; Antonios Athanasiou; Thomas J Murphy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Oesophageal Stents in the Management of Oesophageal Anastomotic Leaks and Benign Oesophageal Perforations: An Updated Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sivesh K Kamarajah; James Bundred; Gary Spence; Andrew Kennedy; Bobby V M Dasari; Ewen A Griffiths
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Laparoscopic Repair of Spontaneous Esophageal Perforation After Multiple Endoscopic Failures.

Authors:  Murugappan Nachiappan; Ravikiran Thota; Srikanth Gadiyaram
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-07-12

4.  Early diagnosis is associated with improved clinical outcomes in benign esophageal perforation: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bram D Vermeulen; Britt van der Leeden; Jawad T Ali; Tomas Gudbjartsson; Michael Hermansson; Donald E Low; Douglas G Adler; Abraham J Botha; Xavier B D'Journo; Atila Eroglu; Lorenzo E Ferri; Christoph Gubler; Jan Willem Haveman; Lileswar Kaman; Richard A Kozarek; Simon Law; Gunnar Loske; Joerg Lindenmann; Jung-Hoon Park; J David Richardson; Paulina Salminen; Ho-Yong Song; Jon A Søreide; Manon C W Spaander; Jeffrey N Tarascio; Jon A Tsai; Tim Vanuytsel; Camiel Rosman; Peter D Siersema
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Esophageal emergencies: WSES guidelines.

Authors:  Mircea Chirica; Michael D Kelly; Stefano Siboni; Alberto Aiolfi; Carlo Galdino Riva; Emanuele Asti; Davide Ferrari; Ari Leppäniemi; Richard P G Ten Broek; Pierre Yves Brichon; Yoram Kluger; Gustavo Pereira Fraga; Gil Frey; Nelson Adami Andreollo; Federico Coccolini; Cristina Frattini; Ernest E Moore; Osvaldo Chiara; Salomone Di Saverio; Massimo Sartelli; Dieter Weber; Luca Ansaloni; Walter Biffl; Helene Corte; Imtaz Wani; Gianluca Baiocchi; Pierre Cattan; Fausto Catena; Luigi Bonavina
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 6.  Minimally invasive surgical management of Boerhaave's syndrome: a narrative literature review.

Authors:  Alberto Aiolfi; Giancarlo Micheletto; Guglielmo Guerrazzi; Gianluca Bonitta; Giampiero Campanelli; Davide Bona
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforation: A single-center experience and a pooled analysis.

Authors:  Yufeng Deng; Luqi Hou; Dianyue Qin; Ting Huang; Tianzhu Yuan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 1.817

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.