Classification of the oesophageal perforation.

OBJECTIVES: Esophageal perforations are a complex clinical scenario that have been poorly studied. To date, there is no grading of esophageal perforations, the reason being that the outcome is very heterogeneous, because the perforation is very heterogeneous. A grading of the severity of the perforation may guide treatment, and could ultimately affect morbidity and mortality. METHODS: The observation period of the study was four years. All patients with a perforation of the esophagus aged 18 to 90 years were included. All anastomotic insufficiencies or fistulas after surgery of the esophagus were excluded. The cause of the injury and the time interval between the event and the start of therapy were analyzed. The severity of each perforation was classified based on the results of a diagnostic CT scan, gastroscopy as well as clinical and laboratory findings. Therapy and signs of infection were evaluated. Endpoints of the study were patient recovery or death. The study was conducted as a retrospective single-center study at a university hospital of Düsseldorf. The study has been approved by the review board. Patients gave their informed consent before data collection. All data were analyzed using SPSS 29 (IBM SPSS Statistics software). RESULTS: Age, gender and cause of the esophageal perforation did not impact significantly on overall survival. The duration of injury > 24 h (p = 0.01), presence of mediastinitis (p = 0.01) and necrosis of the esophagus (p = 0.02) were associated with an unfavorable outcome. The correlation of the clinical grading of the severity of the perforation based on the endoscopic, radiological and clinical findings with the overall survival of patients was significant. Patients categorized into the four grades of severity (I-IV) had an overall survival of 100%, 100%, 70% and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The severity of esophageal perforations can be systematically rated grades I to IV based on the radiological, endoscopic and clinical findings at diagnosis. Due to the grading and its correlation to the overall survival, a comparison of patients, their treatment and outcome becomes possible. In future, the grade of a perforation may guide treatment, and therefore affect morbidity and mortality.

Boerhaave's Syndrome Presenting in the Setting of Third-Degree Heart Block.

Introduction: Boerhaave's syndrome, or the spontaneous transmural perforation of the esophagus, is typically thought to be due to an increase in esophageal pressure such as that which occurs during vomiting or retching. Another common etiology of esophageal perforation is esophageal instrumentation, such as during esophagogastroduodenoscopy or transesophageal echocardiography. This life-threatening condition requires prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent patient demise. While a history of vomiting can aid in diagnosis, this history can be difficult to elicit in an unconscious patient or may be altogether absent. Additionally, Boerhaave's syndrome can present similarly to more common upper gastrointestinal or cardiac conditions. Since mortality increases with delays in diagnosis and treatment, it is imperative that clinicians maintain a high level of suspicion for Boerhaave's syndrome and initiate treatment urgently. Case Description: This report presents a 76-year-old man who presented to the emergency department after a history of several syncopal episodes and was found to be in complete heart block. Two days later, he acutely developed abdominal distention and coffee ground emesis. As the medical team was able to gather more history from the patient and his family, it was revealed that he had associated vomiting with his episodes of syncope. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis demonstrated pneumomediastinum concerning for esophageal perforation. His clinical status subsequently deteriorated. He was intubated and a temporary transvenous pacer was placed before being transferred to our facility for emergent surgery. Discussion: Complete heart block in the setting of Boerhaave's syndrome is exceptionally rare, with only 2 cases reported in the literature. The decision to place a pacemaker in the setting of esophageal perforation/sepsis is complicated and depends on the patient's bacteremia status related to noncardiac comorbidities. Clearly this case represents the need for excellent multidisciplinary decision-making processes with excellent communication between hospital staff and all caretakers. Expeditious diagnosis and treatment of esophageal perforation is essential to prevent leaking of gastric contents into the mediastinum and worsening of cardiac complications and sepsis. Additionally, critical timing of various surgical procedures, especially the need for a permanent pacemaker implant with bacteremia is a complicated process not well described in the surgical literature.

[Endoscopic vacuum therapy in minimally invasive treatment of esophageal perforations]. / Effektivnost' endoskopicheskoi vakuumnoi terapii v kompleksnom minimal'no invazivnom lechenii perforatsii pishchevoda.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) and open surgery for esophageal perforations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 60 patients with esophageal perforations between 2010 and 2022. The main group included 29 patients who underwent minimally invasive treatment with EVT, the control group - 31 patients after open surgical interventions. RESULTS: Pneumonia occurred in 21 (72%) and 14 (45%) patients (p=0.04), esophageal stenosis within the perforation zone - in 4 (13.8%) and 1 (3.2%) patient, respectively (p=0.188). Chronic esophageal fistulas were significantly more common in the control group (6 (20.7%) versus 15 (48.4%) patients, p=0.032). The overall duration of treatment (median) among survivors was significantly shorter in the main group: 33 (23; 48) versus 71.5 (59; 93.7) days (p=0.5). However, length of ICU-stay was slightly higher (11 (6; 16) versus 8.5 (5; 12.75) days, p=0.32). Mortality rate was 13.8% (n=4) and 29% (n=9), respectively (p=0.213). Minimally invasive technologies decreased the risk of fatal outcome by 10 times (OR 10.123, 95% CI 1.491-124.97, p=0.035) compared to traditional surgery. CONCLUSION: EVT in complex minimally invasive treatment of patients with mechanical esophageal injuries is an effective method significantly reducing mortality and duration of inpatient treatment compared to traditional surgical approach.

[Diagnosis and treatment of traumatic esophageal perforation.] / A traumás nyelocso-perforáció diagnosztikája, kezelési stratégiája egy konzervatívan sikeresen kezelt eset kapcsán.

Traumatic esophageal injuries are extremely rare and challenging both from a diagnostic and therapeutic point of view. As regards one of their patients, the authors review the etiology and the pathophysiology of esophageal perforations. They present the case of a 36-year-old patient with a penetrating chest trauma. During an acute surgery, the foreign body was removed from the mediastinum, but in the early postoperative period, an oesophageal rupture was recognized. After conservative management, the patient was discharged from the hospital without any complications 82 days after the injury. Considering that the traumatic esophageal rupture is rare and the mortality of these patients is very high, it is important to make a good decision in time. The authors would like to highlight that even in the case of severe penetrating esophageal injury, the right therapeutical decision can lead to complete recovery. Orv Hetil. 2023; 164(43): 1719-1724.

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 Perforation: Is Surgery Still Necessary?

Esophageal perforation is a rare but fatal disease process that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. Surgery has historically been required for treatment; however, there is currently a shift toward endoscopic management. Although no randomized controlled trials exist to compare patient outcomes, many case series and systematic analyses describe their indications, efficacy, and safety profile. Endoscopic stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy are the 2 therapies most widely described across a diverse patient population and appear to be safe and effective when treating esophageal perforation, in the proper clinical setting. Guidelines and scoring systems exist to help direct management and stratify patient risk.

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.

The Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Esophageal Perforation.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal perforation is a serious and potentially life-threatening medical emergency. Given multiple etiologies and varying clinical presentations of the perforated esophagus, the diagnosis is commonly delayed, complicating expeditious and optimal intervention. METHODS: We thoroughly reviewed the latest literature on the subject and herein describe the various treatment strategies in varying settings. RESULTS: Treatment depends on multiple factors including the cause and location of the perforation, the time interval between the inciting event and presentation to the managing clinician, the overall medical stability of the patient, comorbidities including pre-existent esophageal pathology or prior foregut operations, and both the location and extent of extra-esophageal fluid collections. Because of these various considerations, determining the best diagnostic and therapeutic approach requires considerable clinical experience and judgment on the part of the physician. Management principles include (1) adequate fluid resuscitation; (2) expeditious administration of appropriate broad-spectrum antibiotics; (3) repair, occlusion, exclusion, diversion, or exteriorization of the perforation site; (4) drainage of extraluminal fluid collections; (5) relief of distal obstruction; and (6) nutritional support. CONCLUSIONS: For decades, operative intervention has been the mainstay of therapy for esophageal perforation. More recently, endoscopic therapies, including stenting, clipping, suturing, or endoscopic vacuum therapy, have been introduced, expanding the clinician's therapeutic armamentarium while supplanting surgical approaches in many cases. With further experience and introduction of novel therapies, the management of esophageal perforation undoubtedly will continue to evolve.

[Laparoscopic transchiatal access in Boerhaave syndrome]. / Laparoskopicheskii transkhiatal'nyi dostup pri sindrome Burkhave.

Diagnosis of spontaneous rupture of the esophagus (Boerhaave syndrome) followed by purulent mediastinitis and pleural empyema has now been greatly simplified due to CT. The main thing is to suspect this syndrome in a timely manner. Methods of surgical treatment of this disease are still being discussed. We present successful laparoscopic treatment of spontaneous rupture of the esophagus.

Could the Pittsburgh Severity Score guide the treatment of esophageal perforation? Experience of a single referral center.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal perforation (EP) is characterized by high morbidity and mortality. The Pittsburgh Severity Score (PSS) is a scoring system based on clinical factors at the time of EP presentation, intended to guide treatment. The aim of the study is to verify PSS usefulness in stratifying EP severity and in guiding clinical decisions. METHODS: All patients referred to our unit for EP between January 2005 and January 2020 were enrolled. Patients were stratified according to their PSS into three groups (PSS ≤ 2, 3-5, and >5): the postoperative outcomes were compared. The predictive value of the PSS was evaluated by simple linear and logistic regression for the following outcomes: need for surgery, complications, in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, time to refeeding, and need for reintervention. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were referred for EP (male/female, 46/27). Perforations were more frequently iatrogenic (41.1%) or spontaneous (38.3%). The median PSS was 4 (interquartile range, 2-6). Surgery was required in 60.3% of cases. Pittsburgh Severity Score was associated with ICU admission, hospital stay, need for surgery and reintervention, postperforation complications and mortality. After regression analysis, PSS was significantly predictive of postperforation complications (p < 0.01), in-hospital mortality (p = 0.01), ICU admission (p < 0.01), need for surgical treatment (p < 0.01), and need for reintervention (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Pittsburgh Severity Score is useful in stratifying patients in risk groups with different morbidity and mortality. It is also useful in guiding the therapeutic conduct, selecting patients for nonoperative management. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the role of the PSS in the treatment of esophageal perforation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Management, Therapeutic/Care; level IV.

Prognostic factors of esophageal perforation and rupture leading to mortality: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal perforation and rupture (EPR) is a serious, potentially life-threatening condition. However, no treatment methods have been established, and data concerning factors affecting mortality are limited. This report presents the prognostic factors of mortality in EPR based on experience in the management of such patients. METHODS: For this retrospective analysis, 79 patients diagnosed as having EPR between 2006 and 2016 and managed at Gyeongsang National University Hospital were examined. The management method was determined in accordance with the location and size of the EPR, laboratory findings, and radiological findings. Thirty-nine patients were treated with surgery; and 40, with nonsurgical management. RESULTS: The most common cause of EPR was foreign body (fish bone or meat bone), followed by vomiting, iatrogenic causes, and trauma. Thirty-nine patients underwent primary repair of EPR, of whom 4 patients died. Forty patients underwent nonsurgical management, of whom 3 patients died. The remaining patients were discharged. Mortality correlated with the size of the EPR (> 25 mm) and the segmented neutrophil count percentage (> 86.5%) in the white blood cell test and differential. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality risk was increased when the EPR size and the segmented neutrophil count percentage in the white blood cell test and differential was high. Delayed diagnosis, which was considered an important predictive factor in previous investigations, was not statistically significant in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

MANAGEMENT OF ESOPHAGEAL PERFORATION: A CASE REPORT.

Esophageal perforation (EP) is a devastating condition. In modern times it is still associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. 62-year-old male patient came to Surgical Department of the First University Clinic of Tbilisi State Medical University on 17.10.2018 15:00. The patient complained of pain in the chest cavity, especially after eating, shortness of breath, fever, chills, weakness. The patient felt pain in the chest cavity after eating 4 days before hospitalization. CT scan revealed pneumomediastinum, extravasation of contrast medium at the level of the 8th thoracic vertebra. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed a defect in the esophagus at the level of 32 cm from the incisors. Dimensions of defect were 2.0 - 3.0 cm. An urgent operation was performed. Left-sided posterolateral thoracotomy, mediastinotomy, suturing of the defect, buttressing of the sutures with the mediastinal pleura, washing and drainage of the mediastinum and left pleural cavity were performed. A Witzel gastrostomy was performed. After the operation, the patient's treatment continued in the intensive care unit. Since leakage was noted, it was decided to place an esophageal stent in the area of the defect. Stenting was performed on 05.11.2018. A complication in the form of bleeding was noted on 01.12.2018. Bleeding was controlled conservatively. Finally, stent was removed and the patient was discharged from the clinic in good condition on 07.12.2018. New interventional endoscopic techniques, including endoscopic clips, covered metal stents, and endoluminal vacuum therapy, have been developed over the last several years to manage esophageal perforation. Surgery should be undertaken in all patients who do not meet non-operative management criteria. Buttressing the esophageal repair with surrounding viable tissue has been recommended to decrease the risk of leakage. If direct repair of thoracic EP is not feasible esophageal exclusion, diversion, or resection should be performed. Repair over a large size T-tube can be used to create a controlled esophago-cutaneous fistula and minimize mediastinal and pleural contamination. Thus, esophageal perforation continues to present a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge despite decades of clinical experience and innovation in surgical technique.

Algorithmic Approach to Reconstruction of Esophageal/Hypopharyngeal Injuries After Anterior Cervical Spinal Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical disk fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical approach for the treatment of cervical spine pathology. Esophageal perforations, though uncommon, are a devastating complication of this surgery. The objective of this paper is to assess the success of different treatment approaches for the management of esophageal/pharyngeal injury after ACDF. METHODS: Given the absence of prospective trials, the review includes institutional case reports and case series from 1985-2020 in the English language literature. Only cases of esophageal/pharyngeal injury in the setting of anterior cervical hardware were considered for study inclusion. For purposes of this study, treatment success is defined as resumption of oral intake. RESULTS: The database review identified 76 distinct series that meet criteria for study inclusion, with 173 patients available for analysis. A heterogeneous array of treatments was used for the management of pharyngoesophageal injuries after ACDF ranging from observation to complex free tissue reconstruction, with varying degrees of treatment success reported. We identified a number of factors, specifically duration of injury from initial ACDF procedure, which may impact the complexity of treatment required to maximize likelihood of treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: Pharyngoesophageal injuries, albeit rare, are a serious and often complex complication after ACDF procedures. We propose a detailed algorithmic approach to guide decision making if faced with this clinical challenge. The huge variability in how these patients are treated emphasizes the potential utility of future multiinstitutional studies.

Suitable Diagnosis and Treatment of Esophageal Ruptures in Cases of Non-Boerhaave Syndrome: A Comparison With Boerhaave Syndrome.

Boerhaave syndrome (BS) is frequently reported in cases of esophageal perforation; however, there are relatively few studies on non-Boerhaave syndrome (nBS). This study clarifies the appropriate diagnosis and treatment for patients with nBS among those with esophageal ruptures. Twelve patients with esophageal ruptures who underwent surgery at our department over 14 years were classified into 2 groups: 4 in the nBS group and 8 in the BS group. Patient characteristics, surgical methods, surgical outcomes, and complications were compared between the groups. The chief complaints varied between the groups. The nBS group had significantly higher preoperative C-reactive protein (P = .007) and required 5 days (median) from onset to surgery. Moreover, the perforation diameter was significantly smaller in the nBS group than in the BS group (P = .013). Suturing of the perforation site was performed during the initial surgery in 8 BS group patients (100%) and 1 nBS group patient (25%; P = .018). Only drainage was performed during the initial surgery for 3 nBS group patients (75%). The complications did not significantly differ between the groups (P = 1.000), and no deaths were reported. The chief complaints of patients with nBS are diverse, and esophageal perforation should be cited as a differential diagnosis even in the absence of vomiting or chest pain symptoms. In the initial surgery for patients with nBS, the perforation site does not necessarily need to be closed. It is treatable by second-stage surgery or by natural closing.

Non-operative management of bilateral contained thoracic esophageal perforation: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Despite profound advances in conservative management of esophageal perforation, patients' selection for this type of treatment requires expert clinical judgment. Surgical intervention has been historically introduced as the optimal management in multifocal ruptures. CASE PRESENTATION: Here, we presented a 30-year-old man whose barium esophagogram confirmed bilateral perforations in the lower third of the esophagus contained in the mediastinum, and contrast drained back into the esophageal lumen. Concerning available contrast imaging studies and thoracic surgeons, conservative non-operative management was considered despite pneumomediastinum, a mild right-sided pleural effusion, and minimal leukocytosis. The patient was followed up for two months without any complications. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral and multifocal esophageal perforations can be managed conservatively provided that the leaks are confined to the mediastinum and drain back to the esophageal lumen, and other criteria for conservative management are met.