Treatment of cervical esophageal perforation caused by foreign bodies

Clinical Characteristics of Children With Foreign Bodies in the Digestive Tract and Analysis of Risk Factors for Serious Complications

Foreign bodies (FBs) in the digestive tract are common in children, we analyzed the clinical characteristics of children with FBs in the digestive tract and discuss the risk factors for serious complications. We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of 139 children with FBs in the digestive tract. Based on the severity of complications caused by FBs, the patients were divided into risk and general groups for analysis and comparison. Significant differences were observed in the retention sites of FBs, the diameter of FBs retained in the esophagus, FBs retention time exceeding 24 h, and the absence of witnesses between the 2 groups. Inadequate care, button batteries (BBs), ingested mmFBs, FBs retained in the esophagus, long-term retention, and giant gastric bezoars may cause serious complications. In addition to treating FBs and the complications, clinicians should emphasize the importance of childcare to prevent the ingestion of FBs.

Esophageal perforation etiology, outcome, and the role of surgical management - an 18-year experience of surgical cases in a referral center

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal perforation is a surgical emergency with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. Its poor prognosis is mainly associated with previous patient-specific comorbidities and a lack of timely diagnosis and treatment. The objective of this study was to investigate the etiological factors and different surgical methods of treatment with consideration of mortality rate and comorbidities.

METHOD

The present cross-sectional study was conducted on patients who underwent surgical intervention due to esophageal injury from 2002 to 2019 (18 years). Demographic and clinical characteristics along with performed surgical interventions were evaluated accordingly.

RESULTS

In this study, 69 patients with a mean age of 38.8 years were evaluated, of which 45 (65.2%) cases were men. In terms of location of the perforation, the thoracic portion of the esophagus followed by the cervical and abdominal esophagus were more frequently injured with a rate of 32 (46.4%), 30 (43.5%), and 19 (27.5%) cases, respectively. Accordingly, foreign body ingestion followed by penetrating injuries were the most common causative agents leading to esophageal perforation.

CONCLUSION

Obtaining the desired results from the treatment of this condition depends on factors such as patients' previous comorbidities, cause of the rupture, the location of the esophageal damage, and delay in the start of treatment. Since there is no single gold standard treatment strategy, each patient should be individually evaluated.

Esophageal emergencies

The esophagus is a deeply located organ which traverses the neck, the thorax, and the abdomen and is surrounded at each level by vital organs. Because of its positioning injuries to the esophagus are rare. Their common denominator is the risk of the organ perforation leading to spillage of digestive contents in surrounding spaces, severe sepsis and eventually death. Most frequent esophageal emergencies are related to the ingestion of foreign bodies or caustic agents, to iatrogenic or spontaneous esophageal perforation and external esophageal trauma. Early diagnosis and appropriate management are the keys of successful outcomes.

Risk factors for the poor prognosis of Benign esophageal perforation: 8-year experience

BACKGROUND

Esophageal perforation (EP) has a high mortality rate and poor prognosis. This single-center retrospective study aims to analyze the related risk factors for benign EP.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 135 patients with benign EP admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from January 2012 to December 2020. Univariate and multivariate logistic analysis were performed to estimate risk factors for prognosis of esophageal perforation patients.

RESULTS

There were 118 EP patients with foreign body ingestion and 17 patients with nonforeign body ingestion. Fish bones (78/118) were the most common foreign body and most of the nonforeign EPs were caused by spontaneous esophageal rupture (14/17). Foreign body perforations occurred mostly in the upper thoracic segment (70/118) and middle thoracic segment (31/118), and spontaneous esophageal ruptures occurred mostly in the lower thoracic segment (15/17). Fifteen patients (11.1%) died during hospitalization or within one month of discharge. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that high white blood cell (WBC) levels [odds ratio (OR) = 2.229, 95% confidential interval (CI): 0.776-6.403, P = 0.025], chest or mediastinal emphysema (OR = 7.609, 95% CI: 2.418-23.946, P = 0.001), and time to treatment > 72 h (OR = 3.407, 95% CI: 0.674-17.233, P = 0.018) were independent risk factors for poor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Foreign body was the major reason for benign EP. High WBC level, chest or mediastinal emphysema and time to treatment > 72 h were risk factors for poor prognosis.

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.

High risk and low prevalence diseases: Esophageal perforation

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal perforation is a rare but serious condition associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

This article highlights the pearls and pitfalls of esophageal perforation, including diagnosis, initial resuscitation, and management in the emergency department based on current evidence.

DISCUSSION

Esophageal perforation occurs with injury to the layers of the esophagus, resulting in mediastinal contamination and sepsis. While aspects of the history and physical examination may prompt consideration of the diagnosis, the lack of classic signs and symptoms cannot be used to rule out esophageal perforation. Chest radiograph often exhibits indirect findings suggestive of esophageal perforation, but these are rarely diagnostic. Advanced imaging is necessary to make the diagnosis, evaluate the severity of the injury, and guide appropriate management. Management focuses on hemodynamic stabilization with intravenous fluids and vasopressors if needed, gastric decompression, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and a thoughtful approach to airway management. Proton pump inhibitors and antifungals may be used as adjunctive therapies. Current available evidence for various treatment options (conservative, endoscopic, and surgical interventions) for esophageal perforation and resulting patient outcomes are limited. A multidisciplinary team approach with input from thoracic surgery, interventional radiology, gastroenterology, and critical care is recommended, with admission to the intensive care setting.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of esophageal perforation can assist emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing this deadly disease.

Emergency management of jujube pit esophageal impactions using rigid esophagoscopy in the aged

OBJECTIVE

To study the emergency management of esophageal jujube pit ingestion.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 114 consecutive cases of jujube pits esophageal impaction during 3 months was performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fourteen cases were confirmed as jujube pit esophageal impaction using contrast-enhanced radiography. All jujube pits were retrieved using rigid esophagoscopy under general anesthesia as outpatients, except one case where a direct laryngoscope was used. In four cases, esophageal perforation was found, the patients were treated with conservative measures, and none died.

CONCLUSION

Jujube pit esophageal impaction is characterized by a high incidence of perforation. The conservative management of cervical perforation is effective in this study. Rigid esophagoscopy under general anesthesia is safe for jujube pit esophageal impaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

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.

Food bolus and oesophageal foreign body: a summary of the evidence and proposed management process

PURPOSE

Food bolus and oesophageal foreign bodies are a common presentation that may be managed by otolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, acute medicine physicians and accident and emergency. The condition is highly variable with presentations ranging from well patients whose obstruction spontaneously passes to peri-arrest with severe aspiration or impending airway compromise. Management of this condition is heterogeneous and often depends on the specialty the patient is originally admitted under. There exist European and American guidelines from the perspective of gastroenterology, but there are no UK-based guidelines and limited consideration of the role of the otolaryngologists and rigid oesophagoscopy.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was carried out to generate conclusions on key management questions for food bolus and oesophageal foreign bodies. This was then summarised into both a written summary of the evidence and a graphical decision tree.

RESULTS

This paper is a review article and presents conclusions regarding management options for food bolus and oesophageal foreign bodies.

CONCLUSION

This article considers the current evidence surrounding investigation and management of oesophageal food bolus and foreign body. It draws conclusions regarding presentation, investigation and subsequent operative treatment. As part of this process, we propose a graphical decision tree to assist in management decisions.

Assessment and treatment of hypopharyngeal and cervical esophagus injury: Literature review

Wounds and perforations of the upper gastrointestinal tract are serious and life-threatening. The hypopharynx and cervical esophagus, by their respective anatomical positions, are exposed to traumatic wounds, most often during diagnostic tests, but management such wounds remains a subject of discussion. The present article analyzes the current state of knowledge on epidemiology, etiologies, risk factors, diagnostic management, prognostic factors and available treatments.

Esophageal emergencies: WSES guidelines

The esophagus traverses three body compartments (neck, thorax, and abdomen) and is surrounded at each level by vital organs. Injuries to the esophagus may be classified as foreign body ingestion, caustic ingestion, esophageal perforation, and esophageal trauma. These lesions can be life-threatening either by digestive contamination of surrounding structures in case of esophageal wall breach or concomitant damage of surrounding organs. Early diagnosis and timely therapeutic intervention are the keys of successful management.

Esophageal foreign bodies in adults: systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Esophageal Foreign Body (FB) impaction represents a major challenge for healthcare providers. Aim of this systematic review was to analyse the current literature evidence on prevalence, presentation, treatment, and outcomes of impacted esophageal FB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted between 2000 and 30th June 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies matched the inclusion criteria. The total number of included patients was 13,092. The cervical esophagus was the most frequent impaction site (67%) and sharp-pointed objects were the most common FB (38.1%). Retrosternal pain (78%), dysphagia (48%), and odynophagia (43.4%) were the most common symptoms. A flexible or rigid endoscopic approach was adopted in 65.1% and 16.8% of patients, respectively. Overall, 17.8% of patients had a complication related to the impacted esophageal FB or to the endoscopic manoeuvers. A surgical approach was required in 3.4% of patients. The overall mortality was 0.85%.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery is the upfront treatment in patients with esophageal perforation or endoscopically irretrievable esophageal FB. A minimally invasive approach can be adopted in selected patients. Effective prevention of FB impaction should focus on accurate diagnostic work-up to search for an underlying motility disorder after a first episode of esophageal impaction, even if transient and self-resolving.

Surgical management and prognostic factors in esophageal perforation caused by foreign body

OBJECTIVES

Esophageal perforation is associated with multiple serious complications and high mortality. Herein, we identify some predictors for postoperative outcomes, compare the outcomes of various surgical approaches, and summarize our experience with esophageal perforation over the past 13 years.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 38 patients diagnosed with esophageal perforation caused by foreign body between November 2004 and May 2018. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify potential risk factors related to prognosis. Effects of different surgery were compared based on postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 38 patients, the number of females was equal to males with a mean age of 55.6 ± 14.9 (range 23-93) years; 22 had thoracic perforations and 16 had cervical perforations. The overall mortality rate was 5.3%. Univariate analysis revealed that sex (p = 0.049), type of foreign body (p = 0.042), abscess (p = 0.049), and site of perforation (p = 0.031) were associated with prognosis. The interval between perforation and surgery did not significantly influence prognosis (p = 0.929). No significant difference was found in postoperative outcomes among various surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

The interval between perforation and treatment was not as important as previously reported. Surgical management should be performed early when feasible, even if the interval between perforation and surgery is 24 h or longer.

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

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.

Epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of esophageal perforations: systematic review

We performed a systematic review of epidemiological, diagnostic, and therapeutic outcomes of esophageal perforations. A systematic review was performed in PubMed database using the key-phrase 'esophageal perforation'. All studies regarding acute esophageal perforations were reviewed and parameters of epidemiology, diagnosis, and management published in the literature from 2005 up to 2015 were included in the study. Studies of postoperative esophageal leaks were excluded. Two researchers performed individually the research, while quality assessment was performed according to GRADE classification. Main outcomes and exposure were overall mortality, perforation-to-admission interval, anatomical position, cause, prevalent symptom at admission, diagnostic tests used, type of initial management (conservative or surgery), healing rate, and fistula complication. There were 1319 articles retrieved, of which 52 studies including 2,830 cases finally met inclusion criteria. Mean duration of study period was 15.2 years. Mean patient age was 58.4 years. Out of 52 studies included, there were 43 studies of very low or low quality included. The overall mortality rate according to extracted data was 13.3% (n = 214, 1,644 patients, 39 studies). Admission before 24 hours was reported in 58.1% of patients (n = 514). Position was thoracic in 72.6% of patients (n = 813, 1,120 patients, 20 studies). Mean cause of perforation was iatrogenic in 46.5% of patients (n = 899, 1,933 patients, 40 studies). Initial management was conservative in 51.3% of cases (n = 904, 1,762 patients, 41 studies) CT confirmed diagnosis in 38.7% of overall cases in which it was used as imaging diagnostic procedure (n = 266), X-ray in 36.6% (n = 231), and endoscopy in 37.4% (n = 343). Sepsis on admission was observed in 23.3% of cases (209 out of 898 patients, 16 studies). The present systematic review highlighted the significant proportion of cases diagnosed with delay over 24 hours, mortality rates ranging over 10% and no consensus regarding optimal therapeutic approach and optimal diagnostic management. As esophageal perforation represents a high-risk clinical condition without consensus regarding optimal management, there should be large multicenter prospective studies or Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)s performed in order to advance diagnostic and therapeutic approach of such challenging pathology.

Placement of transnasal drainage catheter and covered esophageal stent for the treatment of perforated esophageal carcinoma with mediastinal abscess

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Perforated esophageal carcinoma with mediastinal abscess is a clinically life-threatening emergency. Herein, we summarize our experience with placement of transnasal drainage catheters and covered esophageal stents for the treatment of this condition.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the medical records of 20 patients who were treated using our intervention protocol. Patients received local anesthesia and sedation prior to transnasal drainage catheter placement into the mediastinal abscess, which was followed by esophageal stent placement. Once the fluid was completely drained and the abscess was completely closed, the drainage catheter was removed.

RESULTS

The placement of the drainage catheter and stent was successful in all patients. The drainage catheter was successfully removed from the mediastinum after 7-60 days in 14 patients. During the follow-up of 1-18 months, six patients died from hemorrhage, eight from cancer progression or pulmonary infection, one from atrial fibrillation, and one from asphyxia caused by tracheal compression. The remaining four patients can eat normally.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of transnasal drainage catheters and covered esophageal stents may be an appropriate palliative therapy for patients with perforated esophageal carcinoma with mediastinal abscess who are not candidates for surgery or have a high postoperative risk. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:725-730. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Management of cervical esophageal and hypopharyngeal perforations

PURPOSE

Evidence is limited for outcomes of surgical versus conservative management for patients with cervical esophageal or hypopharyngeal perforations.

METHODS

Patients with cervical esophageal or hypopharyngeal perforations treated between 1994 and 2014 were identified using an institutional database. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent operative drainage and those who had conservative management with broad-spectrum antibiotics and withholding oral intake.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were identified with hypopharyngeal or cervical esophageal perforations, mostly due to iatrogenic (nasogastric tube placement, endoscopy, endotracheal intubation) injuries (68%). Fourteen were treated initially with conservative management and 14 with initial surgery. Six patients failed conservative treatment and two patients failed surgical treatment. Patients managed conservatively who had eaten between injury and diagnosis (p=0.003), those who had 24 hours or more between the time of injury and diagnosis (p=0.026), and those who showed signs of systemic toxicity (p=0.001) were significantly more likely to fail conservative treatment and require surgery. No variables were significant for treatment failure in the surgical group. Of the 20 patients who ultimately underwent a surgical procedure, two required a second procedure.

CONCLUSION

Patients who have eaten between the time of perforation and diagnosis, have 24 hours or more between injury and diagnosis, and those that show signs of systemic toxicity are at higher risk of failing conservative management and surgical drainage should be considered. For patients without these risk factors, a trial of conservative management can be attempted.

Negative pressure wound therapy for cervical esophageal perforation with abscess

Perforation of the cervical esophagus is a rare but life-threatening condition. Cervical esophageal perforation with abscess formation can be usually treated with conservative treatments of simple drainage and antibiotics. Aggressive surgical treatments are considered if conservative treatments fail. But the aggressive treatments have low success rate and high morbidity in cervical esophageal perforation. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was widely used in various complicated wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers, open abdomen, pressure ulcers, open fractures, sterna wounds, grafts, and flaps since it had been introduced in 1997. NPWT is known to be a valuable tool in the management of various complicated wounds. In this report, we described a case of intractable cervical esophageal perforation with abscess, which was successfully treated with NPWT after the failure of conservative management.

Aerodigestive foreign bodies in adult ethiopian patients: a prospective study at tikur anbessa hospital, ethiopia

Introduction. Foreign bodies (FBs) in the aerodigestive tract are important causes of morbidity and mortality and pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. The best method of removal of an esophageal and tracheobronchial FB is endoscopic guided extraction. Objective. To present our experience of the removal of aerodigestive FBs in adult Ethiopian patients using rigid endoscopes. Methods. A hospital-based prospective study, at Tikur Anbessa Referral and Teaching Hospital, from January 2011 to December 2012 (over two years). Results. A total of 32 patients (18 males and 14 females) with a mean age of 28.0 ± 12.74 years were treated for FB ingestion and aspiration at Tikur Anbessa Hospital. The FBs were impacted at the esophagus in 18 (56.2%) patients, at the pharynx in 7 (21.8%), and at the air way in 7 (21.8%) patients. Pieces of bones were the commonest objects found in the esophagus (17/18 of the cases) and the pharynx (4/7), while fractured tracheostomy tubes and needles were frequently seen in the air way (3/7 cases each). The foreign bodies were visible in plain radiographs of 26 (81.2%) patients. Successful extraction of FBs was achieved by using Mc gill forceps in 11 cases, rigid esophagoscopes in 9 patients, and bronchoscopes in 4 cases. Four cases required open surgery to remove the foreign bodies. Two complications (one pneumothorax and one esophageal perforation) occurred. All patients were discharged cured. Discussion and Recommendations. Aerodigestive FBs are not so rare in the hospital and timely diagnosis and removal of accidentally ingested and aspirated foreign body should be performed so as to avoid the potentially lethal complications associated. Rigid esophagoscopy requires general anesthesia and is associated with its own complications, but our experience and outcome of its use are encouraging.

Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforations in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of 75 studies

BACKGROUND

The current prognosis of esophageal perforation and the efficacy of available treatment methods are not well defined.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of esophageal perforations published from January 2000 to April 2012 and subjected a proportion of the retrieved data to a meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to determine predictors of mortality immediately after esophageal perforation.

RESULTS

Analysis of 75 studies resulted in a pooled mortality of 11.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 9.7-14.3: 75 studies with 2,971 patients] with a mean hospital stay of 32.9 days (95 % CI 16.9-48.9: 28 studies with 1,233 patients). Cervical perforations had a pooled mortality of 5.9 %, thoracic perforations 10.9 %, and intraabdominal perforations 13.2 %. Mortality after esophageal perforation secondary to foreign bodies was 2.1 %, iatrogenic perforation 13.2 %, and spontaneous perforation 14.8 %. Treatment started within 24 h after the event resulted in a mortality rate of 7.4 % compared with 20.3 % in patients treated later (risk ratio 2.279, 95 % CI 1.632-3.182). Primary repair was associated with a pooled mortality of 9.5 %, esophagectomy 13.8 %, T-tube or any other tube repair 20.0 %, and stent-grafting 7.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of recent studies indicate that mortality after esophageal perforation is high despite any definitive surgical or conservative strategy. Stent-grafting is associated with somewhat lower mortality rates, but studies may be biased by patient selection and limited experience.

Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforations in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of 75 studies

BACKGROUND

The current prognosis of esophageal perforation and the efficacy of available treatment methods are not well defined.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of esophageal perforations published from January 2000 to April 2012 and subjected a proportion of the retrieved data to a meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to determine predictors of mortality immediately after esophageal perforation.

RESULTS

Analysis of 75 studies resulted in a pooled mortality of 11.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 9.7-14.3: 75 studies with 2,971 patients] with a mean hospital stay of 32.9 days (95 % CI 16.9-48.9: 28 studies with 1,233 patients). Cervical perforations had a pooled mortality of 5.9 %, thoracic perforations 10.9 %, and intraabdominal perforations 13.2 %. Mortality after esophageal perforation secondary to foreign bodies was 2.1 %, iatrogenic perforation 13.2 %, and spontaneous perforation 14.8 %. Treatment started within 24 h after the event resulted in a mortality rate of 7.4 % compared with 20.3 % in patients treated later (risk ratio 2.279, 95 % CI 1.632-3.182). Primary repair was associated with a pooled mortality of 9.5 %, esophagectomy 13.8 %, T-tube or any other tube repair 20.0 %, and stent-grafting 7.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of recent studies indicate that mortality after esophageal perforation is high despite any definitive surgical or conservative strategy. Stent-grafting is associated with somewhat lower mortality rates, but studies may be biased by patient selection and limited experience.