Open surgery versus stent placement in failed primary surgical treatment of esophageal perforation - a single institutional experience

Outcomes Associated With Esophageal Perforation Management: Results From a French Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes associated with esophageal perforation (EP) management at a national level and determine predictive factors of 90-day mortality (90dM), failure-to-rescue (FTR), and major morbidity (MM, Clavien-Dindo 3-4).

BACKGROUND

EP remains a challenging clinical emergency. Previous population-based studies showed rates of 90dM up to 38.8% but were outdated or small-sized.

METHODS

Data from patients admitted to hospitals with EP were extracted from the French medico-administrative database (2012-2021). Etiology, management strategies, and short and long-term outcomes were analyzed. A cutoff value of the annual EP management caseload affecting FTR was determined using the "Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector" method. Random effects logistic regression model was performed to assess independent predictors of 90dM, FTR, and MM.

RESULTS

Among 4765 patients with EP, 90dM and FTR rates were 28.0% and 19.4%, respectively. Both remained stable during the study period. EP was spontaneous in 68.2%, due to esophageal cancer in 19.7%, iatrogenic postendoscopy in 7.3%, and due to foreign body ingestion in 4.7%. Primary management consisted of surgery (n = 1447,30.4%), endoscopy (n = 590,12.4%), isolated drainage (n = 336,7.0%), and conservative management (n = 2392,50.2%). After multivariate analysis, besides age and comorbidity, esophageal cancer was predictive of both 90dM and FTR. An annual threshold of ≥8 EP managed annually was associated with a reduced 90dM and FTR rate. In France, only some university hospitals fulfilled this condition. Furthermore, primary surgery was associated with a lower 90dDM and FTR rate despite an increase in MM.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide evidence for the referral of EP to high-volume centers with multidisciplinary expertise. Surgery remains an effective treatment for EP.

Safety and Efficacy of Nonoperative Treatment in Esophageal Perforation Caused by Foreign Bodies

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal foreign bodies are often treated by endoscopy, but the treatment of esophageal perforation caused by foreign bodies remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of nonoperative treatment of esophageal perforation caused by foreign bodies.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 270 patients admitted to our hospital for esophageal perforation caused by foreign bodies from January 2012 to December 2020, all of whom received nonoperative treatment.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 56 ± 17 years, and fish bones were the most common type of foreign body. A total of 61.2% of the perforations were in the cervical esophagus. All patients received nonoperative treatment initially, and the foreign body removal rate using endoscopy reached 97%. The perforation healing rate reached 94.8%, whereas 3 patients (1.1%) died during hospitalization. The median (range) duration of hospitalization was 4 days (3-6). Multivariable analysis showed age ≥ 66 years (odds ratio [OR]: 2.196; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.232-3.916; P = 0.008), men (OR: 1.934; 95% CI: 1.152-3.246; P = 0.013), and time to treatment (OR: 1.126; 95% CI: 1.027-1.233; P = 0.011) were independent risk factors for infection, whereas the risk of infection was lower when the foreign body type was fish bone (OR: 0.557; 95% CI: 0.330-0.940; P = 0.028).

DISCUSSION

Nonoperative treatment is safe and effective for esophageal perforation caused by foreign bodies. Even if perforation is combined with infection, active nonoperative treatment can still achieve a good effect. Early intervention can effectively reduce the risk of infection and improve patient outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

Esophageal perforation has been one of the serious clinical emergencies, because of the high mortality and complication rates. However, the current prognosis of esophageal perforation and the outcomes of available treatment methods are not well defined. This study attempted to pool the immediate outcomes of esophageal perforation in the past 2 decades.

METHODS

The clinical data of 22 consecutive adult patients with esophageal perforation in our center were analyzed. A pooled analysis was also conducted to summarize results from the literatures published between 1999 and 2020. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed, and their methodological quality was examined.

RESULTS

The mortality and complication rates in our center were 4.55% and 31.82%, separately. The pooled analysis included 45 studies published between 1999 and 2019, which highlighted an overall immediate mortality rate of 9.86%. Surgical treatments were associated with a pooled immediate mortality of 10.01%, and for conservative treatments of 6.49%. Besides, in the past decade, the mortality and complication rates decreased by 27.12% and 46.75%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the past 2 decades, the overall immediate mortality rate of esophageal perforation was about 10% in the worldwide, and the outcomes of esophageal perforation treatment are getting better in the last 10 years.

ETHICS REGISTRATION INFORMATION

LW2020011.

Patient Outcomes After Stent Failure for the Treatment of Acute Esophageal Perforation

BACKGROUND

Esophageal stent placement for acute esophageal perforation has become part of the treatment algorithm for many thoracic surgery programs. Despite high success rates, there are patients for which stent placement is not successful. This investigation summarizes the outcomes of a relatively large group of such patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent esophageal stent placement for an acute perforation but required conversion to another form of therapy were identified from a prospectively collected institutional database. Excluded were patients whose perforation was associated with a malignancy. Patient demographics, operative and nonoperative invasive procedures, morbidities, mortality, and 6-month follow-up after discharge were reviewed.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2015, 26 patients who failed to seal their esophageal leak after stent placement were identified. Eighteen (69%) of these patients required an operative repair with primary closure of the perforation. Four (15%) primary repairs had a persistent leak controlled with subsequent stent placement. Four (15%) patients required an esophagectomy with cervical esophagostomy. Three patients (11%), because of comorbid conditions, were referred for hospice care. One patient (3%) refused operative repair and developed a chronic fistula that resolved with subsequent stent placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal stent placement continues to be a safe and effective treatment for acute esophageal perforation. Patients whose perforation does not seal with initial stent placement can be treated with primary surgical repair or esophagectomy without increasing their morbidity or mortality or compromising their prognosis.

Esophageal Stenting in Clinical Practice: an Overview

OPINION STATEMENT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Esophageal stents are used in clinical practice for endoscopic treatment of a wide variety of esophageal diseases and conditions. This review provides key principles and a literature update on the utility and limitations of esophageal stenting in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Indications for esophageal stenting can be subdivided into two groups. The first group consists of patients with malignant or benign dysphagia, in which an esophageal stent restores luminal patency. In the past years, temporary stent placement has increasingly been used in the therapeutic management of refractory benign esophageal strictures. When endoscopic repeated bougie dilation and other endoscopic treatment modalities have failed, an esophageal stent could be considered. Based on the literature, a fully covered self-expandable metal stent may be the preferred choice for the treatment of both malignant and benign dysphagia. The second group consists of patients with leakage from the esophageal lumen into the surrounding tissue. Esophageal leakage can be subdivided into three forms, benign esophageal perforations (iatrogenic and spontaneous), anastomotic leakage after reconstructive esophageal surgery, and fistula. In a carefully selected group of patients, a covered esophageal stent may be used for sealing off the leakage, thereby preventing further contamination of the tissue surrounding the defect. The past few years, several validated prediction tools have been developed that may assist clinicians in the selection of patients eligible for esophageal stent placement. Based on retrospective studies and expert opinion, a partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stent may have a role in treatment of esophageal leakage. Research do date supports the utilization of esophageal stents for the treatment of malignant or benign dysphagia and esophageal leakage.