Esophageal perforation: Continuing challenge to treatment

Multidisciplinary, minimally invasive approach for oesophageal perforations with delayed presentation

Background

The present study aims to report the outcomes of a multidisciplinary, minimally invasive approach to treating patients with delayed presentation of oesophageal perforation.

Patients and Methods

The present study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data at a tertiary care centre. All patients with oesophageal perforation presenting over 48 h after the onset of symptoms and without oesophageal obstruction were included in the study. Self-expanding Metallic Stent (SEMS) or endoscopic clip placement was performed in all the patients, followed by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) debridement and decortication of pleural cavity collection. 'Success' was defined as, discharge without the need of oesophageal diversion and complete healing of leak site at 8 weeks with successful removal of the stent.

Results

Between March 2012 and December 2019, 12 patients (10 males, median age of 55 years- range of 39-71 years) with oesophageal perforation and delayed presentation underwent treatment with this approach. Ten patients had spontaneous perforation (83.3%) and one patient each had upper gastrointestinal endoscopy-induced and post-traumatic perforation. The median duration of symptoms was 8 days (range 3-31 days). SEMS was placed in ten patients and, in two patients, an over-the-scope clip was used. VATS decortication was done in ten patients (83.3%) and the remaining two (16.7%) underwent VATS debridement. One patient required oesophageal diversion and another patient expired due to sepsis. The overall success with this approach was 83.3%.

Conclusion

This multidisciplinary, minimally invasive approach is feasible in patients with thoracic oesophageal perforation and delayed presentation, with a high success rate.

Factors affecting perforation of the esophagus in patients with deep neck infection

Background

Deep neck infection (DNI) is a serious disease that can lead to severe morbidity, including esophageal perforation, and mortality. However, no previous study has explored the risk factors associated with esophageal perforation in patients with DNI. This study investigated these factors.

Methods

Between September 2015 and September 2021, 521 patients with DNI were studied. Relevant clinical variables and deep neck spaces were assessed.

Results

In a multivariate analysis, involvement of the retropharyngeal space (OR 5.449, 95% CI 1.603–18.51, p = 0.006) and the presence of mediastinitis (OR 218.8, 95% CI 55.98–855.3, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors associated with esophageal perforation in patients with DNI.

There were no differences in pathogens between 32 patients with and 489 patients without esophageal perforation (all p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Involvement of the retropharyngeal space and the presence of mediastinitis were independent risk factors associated with esophageal perforation in patients with DNI. There were no differences in pathogens between the groups with and without esophageal perforation in DNI.

Endoscopic therapy compared to surgical repair for the treatment of acute esophageal perforations

BACKGROUND

There is currently limited long-term data regarding the clinical outcomes of endoscopic stents as an alternative for emergency surgery in the treatment of acute esophageal perforation. Our aim was to compare the long-term outcomes of endoscopic stenting with those of surgery for patients with acute esophageal perforation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of acute esophageal perforation patients who underwent insertion of esophageal stents (N.=80) or surgery (N.=85) for treatment. The primary endpoint was technical and clinical success to resolve esophageal perforation. Secondary endpoints include early (procedural) and long-term adverse event, acute mortality, and hospital stay duration.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 78% of patients treated with stent, and 90.6% of patients who underwent surgery. Clinical success to resolve perforation was 88.7% of patients with stent placement and 95.3% in the surgery group (P=0.15). Stent patients had significantly less procedural adverse events compared to the surgery group (3.8% vs. 15%, P=0.0001). The acute mortality for the stent group was 2.5% compared to 3.5% in surgery group (P=0.6). Patients in the stent group had shorter median hospital stay (22 days) as compared to the surgery group (32 days) (P<0.00001). Stent placement was associated with higher long-term complication rates as compared to surgery (31.2% vs. 10.6%, P=0.0001). Patients who underwent surgery had a significantly higher mortality (10.6%) compared to stent group (2.5%) (P=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Technical and clinical success for acute esophageal perforation therapy were similar among patients who underwent placement of stents as compared to surgery. Surgery was associated with a higher mortality, longer hospital stay and a markedly higher rate of procedural adverse events. Esophageal stents may be considered as the initial mode of therapy of a patient with acute esophageal perforation.

Management of Esophageal Perforation: 28-Year Experience in a Major Referral Center

Esophageal perforation constitutes a surgical emergency. Despite its gravity, no single strategy has been described as sufficient to deal with most situations to date. The aim of this study was to assess the etiology, management, and outcome of esophageal perforation over a 28-year period, to characterize optimal treatment options in this severe disease. A retrospective clinical review of all patients treated for esophageal perforation at Ramón y Cajal Hospital between January 1987 and December 2015 was performed (n = 57). Iatrogenic injury was the most frequent cause of esophageal perforation (n = 32). Abdominal esophagus was the main location (23 patients; 40.4%). Eight patients (14%) were managed with antibiotics and parenteral nutrition. In seven patients (12.3%), an endoscopic stent was implanted. Surgical therapy was performed in 38 patients (66.7%). Morbidity and 90-day mortality rates were 61.4 and 28 per cent, respectively. Five patients were reoperated (8.8%). Median hospital stay was 23.5 days. The mortality rate was higher among patients with spontaneous and tumoral perforation (54.5 and 100%; P = 0.009), delayed diagnosis (>24 hours; P = 0.0001), and abdominal/thoracic location (37.5%; P = 0.05). No statistical differences were found between surgical and conservative/endoscopic management (31% vs 20%; P = 0.205) although hospital staying was longer in surgical group (36.30 days vs 15.63 days; P = 0.029). Esophageal perforation was associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Global outcomes depend on etiology, site of perforation, and delay in diagnosis. An individualized approach for each patient should be chosen to prevent septic complications of this potentially fatal disease.

Endoscopic "rescue" treatment for gastrointestinal perforations, anastomotic dehiscence and fistula

Luminal perforations and anastomotic leaks of the gastrointestinal tract are life-threatening events with high morbidity and mortality. Early recognition and prompt therapy is essential for a favourable outcome. Surgery has long been considered the "gold standard" approach for these conditions; however it is associated with high re-intervention morbidity and mortality. The recent development of endoscopic techniques and devices to manage perforations, leaks and fistulae has made non-surgical treatment an attractive and reasonable alternative approach. Although endoscopic therapy is widely accepted, comparative data of the different techniques are still lacking. In this review we describe, benefits and limitations of the current options in the management of patients with perforations and leaks, in order to improve outcomes.