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.

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.

Repair, Reconstruct, or Divert: Fate of the Perforated Esophagus.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine differences in esophageal perforation populations undergoing different advanced interventions for perforated esophagus and identify predictors of treatment outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Contained esophageal perforation can often be managed expectantly, but uncontained perforation is uniformly fatal without invasive intervention. Treatment options for the latter range from simple endoscopic control through advanced intervention. Clinical presentation varies greatly and directs which intervention is most appropriate. METHODS: From 1996 to 2017, 335 patients were treated for esophageal perforation, and 166 for advanced interventions: 74 primary repair with tissue flap (repair), 26 esophagectomy and gastric pull-up (resection), and 66 esophagectomy and immediate diversion with planned delayed reconstruction (resection-diversion). Patient characteristics, clinical presentation, operative outcomes, and survival were abstracted. Pittsburgh Severity Scores (PSS) were retrospectively calculated. Random survival forest analysis was performed for 90-day mortality and competing risks for reconstruction after resection-diversion. RESULTS: Repair and resection patients had lower PSS than resection-diversion patients (3 vs 3 vs 6, respectively). Ninety-day mortality for repair, resection, and resection-diversion was 11% vs 7.7% vs 23%, and 5-year survival was 71% vs 63% vs 47%. Risk of death after resection-diversion was highest within 1 year, but 52% of patients had reconstruction of the upper alimentary tract within 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Several advanced interventions exist for critically ill patients with uncontained esophageal perforation. Repair and organ preservation are always preferred; however, patients at extremes of illness might best be treated with resection-diversion, with the understanding that the competing risk of death may preclude eventual reconstruction.

Contemporary management of traumatic cervical and thoracic esophageal perforation: The results of an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic esophageal perforation is rare and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is substantial variability in diagnosis and treatment. Esophageal stents have been increasingly used for nontraumatic perforation; however, stenting for traumatic perforation is not yet standard of care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current management of traumatic esophageal perforation to assess the frequency of and complications associated with esophageal stenting. METHODS: This was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2011 to 2016 of patients with traumatic cervical or thoracic esophageal injury admitted to one of 11 participating trauma centers. Data were collected and sent to a single institution where it was analyzed. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, initial management, complications, and patient mortality were collected. Primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were initial treatment, esophageal leak, and associated complications. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were analyzed. Esophageal injuries were cervical in 69% and thoracic in 31%. Most patients were initially managed with operative primary repair (61%), followed by no intervention (19%), esophageal stenting (10%), and wide local drainage (10%). Compared with patients who underwent operative primary repair, patients managed with esophageal stenting had an increased rate of esophageal leak (22.6% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.02). Complication rates were higher in blunt compared with penetrating mechanisms (100% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.03) despite similar Injury Severity Score and neck/chest/abdomen Abbreviated Injury Scale. Overall mortality was 9.8% and did not vary based on location of injury, mechanism of injury, or initial management. CONCLUSION: Most patients with traumatic esophageal injuries still undergo operative primary repair; this is associated with lower rates of postoperative leaks as compared with esophageal stenting. Patients who have traumatic esophageal injury may be best managed by direct repair and not esophageal stenting, although further study is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.

A national survey on esophageal perforation: study of cases at accredited institutions by the Japanese Esophagus Society.

OBJECTIVE: To get a clear view of the current state of treatment for esophageal perforation in Japan. Esophagus perforations are the most serious gastrointestinal tract perforations and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. The optimal treatment choice remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective clinical review of 182 esophageal perforation cases at 108 hospitals accredited by the Japanese Esophageal Society between January 2010 and December 2015. RESULTS: We found that 20.9% of patients were incorrectly diagnosed initially. We observed mediastinum emphysema in 83.5% of patients, and serious abscess formations of the mediastinum and intrathoracic cavity in 38.6% and 29.6%, respectively. The lower esophagus was the most commonly perforated site (77.7%). Management of esophageal perforations included nonoperative treatment in 20 patients (11%) and operative treatment in 162 patients (89%). The overall mortality rate was 6.9%. The survivors had significantly shorter times from symptom appearance to visit (p = 0.0016), and from time to visit to diagnosis confirmation (p = 0.0011). Moreover, patients older than 65 years, white blood cells less than 3000/mm3, C-reactive protein > 10 mg/L, or abscesses in the thoracic cavity showed significantly higher mortality than others. CONCLUSION: Shortening the time from onset to the start of treatment contributes to reduce mortality in patients with esophageal perforation. Moreover, strict medical treatment is necessary to lower the mortality rate of elderly patients with strong inflammation and abscesses in the thoracic cavity.

The incidence and long-term outcomes of esophageal perforations in Finland between 1996 and 2017 - a national registry-based analysis of 1106 esophageal perforations showing high early and late mortality rates and better outcomes in patients treated at high-volume centers.

Background: Esophageal perforations cause severe life-threatening diseases with significant mortality and morbidity. The national incidence and long-term prognosis of these patients is incompletely described in the current literature.Methods: Information regarding each treatment episode for esophageal perforations that had occurred in Finland between 1996 and 2017 and survival data of each patient was obtained from national registries. The occurrence of the disease, related interventions, the number and type of later treatment episodes, as well as the prognosis of these patients was analyzed.Results: The total number of patients with esophageal perforations was 1106 (median age 65, 38% female) and the median follow-up time was 113 months. The overall incidence of the disease was 0.95 (95% CI ± 0.12) per 100,000 person years with male predominance and a trend for slightly increasing occurrence. Esophageal cancer was present in 5.8% of cases. Altogether 41% of patients underwent invasive treatment (31% endoscopic stenting, 69% surgery). Particularly stenting was more frequent later in the series. The median number of disease-related hospitalizations was two and later out-patient clinic visits four. The overall 30-day, 90-day, 1-year and 5-year mortality rates were 14%, 22%, 31% and 46%, respectively, and significantly higher in malignancy-associated cases. There were no clear improvements in the mortality rates over the study period, but the prognosis was better in patients that were treated in higher volume hospitals.Conclusion: There is a slightly increasing trend in the occurrence of esophageal perforations. Contemporary treatment is less invasive with similar results. Patients treated in high-volume hospitals have better prognosis.

Surgical Management of Non-Malignant Esophageal Perforations: A Single-Center Analysis Over a 15-Year Period.

PURPOSE: Esophageal perforations are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Different nonoperative and operative treatment options have been proposed. This study focuses on the impact of different surgical treatments in nonmalignant esophageal perforations and tries to identify predictors of mortality in a single tertiary center over a 15-year period. METHODS: From 2002 to 2017, patients with surgically managed esophageal perforation were identified from our database. Patients with esophageal malignancies were excluded. Etiology, clinical data, treatment, and outcome were analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the impact on mortality. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were identified. The majority of perforations were iatrogenic (54.2%) followed by Boerhaave's syndrome (23.6%). Most ruptures were found in the distal third of the esophagus (59.7%) measuring <3 cm (61.1%). Patients were treated with exploration and drainage (8.3%), primary suture and patch reinforcement (36.1%), resection and restoration of continuity (25.0%), or resection without restoration of continuity (30.6%). Delayed therapy significantly correlated with sepsis (p < 0.0001) and mortality (p = 0.032). A correlation between an increasing perforation length with sepsis (p = 0.012) was observed. A higher Perforation Severity Score (PSS; OR 4.430; 95% CI 1.143-17.174; p = 0.031) and a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (OR 2.923; 95% CI 1.011-8.448; p = 0.048) were associated with mortality in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Esophageal perforations are associated with high mortality, and larger ruptures are associated with worse outcome. Rapid diagnosis and treatment are crucial for patient survival. Hence, PSS and ASA score help to identify high-risk patients. The advantage of surgical management lies in the rapid control of the septic focus in an already critically ill patient. Though, the kind of surgical technique needs to be adjusted to the individual situation.

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

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous esophageal perforation (Boerhaave's syndrome) is a highly morbid condition traditionally associated with poor outcomes. The Pittsburgh perforation severity score (PSS) accurately predicts risk of morbidity, length of stay (LOS) and mortality. Operative management is indicated among patients with medium (3-5) or high (> 5) PSS; however, the role of minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting with Boerhaave's syndrome with intermediate or high PSS managed via a thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach from 2012 to 2018 were reviewed. Demographics, clinical presentation, management, and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Ten patients (80% male) with a mean age of 61.3 years (range 37-81) were included. Two patients had intermediate and eight had high PSS (7.9 ± 2.8, range 4-12). The mean time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 27 ± 12 h and APACHE II score was 13.6 ± 4.9. Thoracoscopic debridement and primary repair was performed in eight cases, with two perforations repaired primarily over a T-tube. Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy was performed in all patients. Critical care LOS was 8.7 ± 6.8 days (range 3-26), while inpatient LOS was 23.1 ± 12.5 days (range 14-46). Mean comprehensive complications index was 42.1 ± 26.2, with grade IIIa and IV morbidity in 60% and 10%, respectively. One patient developed dehiscence at the primary repair, which was managed non-operatively. In-hospital and 90-day mortality was 10%. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgical management of spontaneous esophageal perforation with medium to high perforation severity scores is feasible and safe, with outcomes which compare favorably to the published literature.

[Operative treatment of non-malignant esophageal perforations - a summary of our experiences]. / Nem tumoros nyelocso-perforáció mutéti kezelésével szerzett tapasztalataink.

INTRODUCTION: Despite significant development in surgical and intensive therapy, esophageal perforation is still a severe, life-threatening condition. Successful therapy depends on several clinical factors, available medical equipments, but most of all on the available expertise and experience. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients' data operated at the 1st Department of Surgery at Semmelweis University between 2005 and 2017 due to esophageal perforation of non-malignant origin. RESULTS: During the period above 77 patients were treated. All of them were referred to us from an external institute. 15 patients (19%) arrived in shock. The patients developed perforation in 29 cases spontaneously (38%), in 32 cases (41%) during endoscopy, in 12 cases (16%) due to food bolus impaction, and in 4 cases (5%) following balloon tamponade of esophageal variceal bleeding. Patients were sent to our clinic 2.7 days after the presentation of the symptoms. In 2 patients (2%) drainage, in 6 patients (8%) suture, in 8 patients (12%) funduplication, in 19 patients (28%) esophageal exclusion, and in 33 patients (50%) total esophageal extirpation had to be done. 27 patients (35%) died. Discussion, conclusion: Surgical treatment of esophageal injuries is basically influenced by two factors: observation time before surgery and the presence of sepsis symptoms. We have to perform radical surgery basically due to delay. Waste of time is caused by the non-uniform diagnostic strategy and the delay in the true diagnosis.

Outcome after iatrogenic esophageal perforation.

OBJECTIVES: Iatrogenic perforations are the most common cause of esophageal perforation. We present our experience mainly based on a non-operative treatment approach as well as long-term outcome in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients were treated for iatrogenic esophageal perforation at Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål from February 2007 to March 2014. The etiology of perforation was dilation of benign stricture in eight patients, either dilation, stenting or stent removal in four with malignant stenosis, during diagnostic endoscopy in four, removal of foreign body in two and by other causes in three patients, respectively. After median 82 months, 10 patients alive (47.6%) were sent questionnaires about dysphagia, HRQoL and fatigue. RESULTS: Median age at time of treatment was 66 years. Median in-hospital stay and mortality were 10.5 days and 4.8%, respectively. Initial treatment in 15 patients (71.4%) was non-surgical of whom one needed delayed debridement for pleural empyema. Initial treatment in six patients (28.6%) was surgical of whom three needed delayed stenting. Altogether 14 patients (66.7%) were stented. Eight (57.1%) had restenting. Median number of stents used was 1 (1-4). The stents were removed after median 36 days. The perforations healed after 2.5 months. After median 82 months, the patients reported reduced HRQoL. There was no significant difference regarding level of dysphagia and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: We report satisfactorily short-term and long-term results of iatrogenic esophageal perforations. Mortality was low and HRQoL was deteriorated. Dysphagia and fatigue were comparable to a reference population.

A 4-year single-center experience in the management of esophageal perforation.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal perforation (EP) is a lethal surgical emergency that needs to be diagnosed and treated immediately. Diagnosis and treatment options for EP are limited due to its lower incidence. There are scoring systems proposed for this purpose; however, they cannot be applied to every patient. The recent trend in the treatment of EP is toward the non-operative approach over the surgical treatment methods. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate our treatment methods and outcomes in patients with EP. METHODS: Thirteen patients with EP treated in our clinic between 2013 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The Pittsburgh Perforation Severity Score (PSS), systemic condition status, and Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) score were assessed, and treatment methods were reviewed. Their effects on morbidity and mortality were examined using Fisher's exact test and biserial correlation test. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients (six males and seven females; median age 64 years) were included in the study. Ten patients were managed non-operative, and three were treated surgically. Of the 10 patients, two had additional surgery after non-operative management. The PSS, systemic condition status, CDC score, duration of stay in the hospital, time to diagnosis, presence of hypotension, and being in shock were strongly correlated with mortality (p<0.05). The PSS, CDC score, and stay in the intensive care unit were strongly correlated with morbidity (p<0.05). The comparison between the non-operative and operative groups did not yield a statistically significant difference in mortality and morbidity. CONCLUSION: Even if the scoring systems help to understand the severity of the condition, they are inadequate to determine the treatment option. Early diagnosis and treatment are the most important steps in management. Operative and non-operative treatment options are not superior to each other, but their complementary use will be more beneficial for the patients.

Surgical management of esophageal perforation: role of primary closure.

OBJECTIVE: Esophageal perforation is a life-threatening condition associated with high mortality and morbidity. Ambiguous clinical presentation is one of the most common causes of delayed and difficult diagnosis of esophageal perforation. In this retrospective single-center study, we reviewed the outcome of primary closure in patients with esophageal perforation between 2009 and 2017. METHODS: The data of 65 patients attending our department of thoracic surgery (from 2009 to 2017) for esophageal perforation were reviewed. Primary repair was attempted in 63 patients irrespective of the site of perforation and time interval between injury and hospital admission. In intrathoracic lesions, continuous mediastinal and pleural irrigation was undertaken, whereas in cervical perforations, gauze packing and local irrigation were performed. Jejunotomy was carried out in patients with inadequate healing. RESULTS: Of the 65 patients, 63 underwent primary closure and 2 were left to heal spontaneously. The majority of patients ( n = 44) had an esophageal perforation at the thoracic level, and only one was admitted early (<24 h after injury). Among the 63 patients managed with primary closure, 55 had satisfactory healing with one surgery. Healing was delayed in the other 10 patients. No mortality was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal perforation can be well managed by primary closure, irrespective of the time interval between injury and hospital admission and the site of perforation. Conservative management might lead to an increased rate of complications such as empyema or necrotizing mediastinitis, and increased morbidity and mortality.

Time to perforation for button batteries lodged in the esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: New strategies recently proposed to mitigate injury caused by lithium coin cell batteries lodged in the esophagus include prehospital administration of honey to coat the battery and prevent local hydroxide generation and in-hospital administration of sucralfate suspension (or honey). This study was undertaken to define the safe interval for administering coating agents by identifying the timing of onset of esophageal perforations. METHODS: A retrospective study of 290 fatal or severe battery ingestions with esophageal lodgment was undertaken to identify cases with esophageal perforations. RESULTS: Esophageal perforations were identified in 189 cases (53 fatal, 136 severe; 95.2% in children ≤4 years). Implicated batteries were predominantly lithium (91.0%) and 92.0% were ≥20 mm diameter. Only 2% of perforations occurred in <24 h following ingestion, including 3 severe cases with perforations evident at 11-17 h, 12 h, and 18 h. Another 7.4% of perforations (11 cases) became evident 24 to 47 h post ingestion and 10.1% of perforations (15 cases) became evident 48 to 71 h post ingestion. By 3 days post ingestion, 26.8% of perforations were evident, 36.9% by 4 days, 46.3% by 5 days, and 66.4% by 9 days. CONCLUSION: Esophageal perforation is unlikely in the 12 h after battery ingestion, therefore the administration of honey or sucralfate carries a low risk of extravasation from the esophagus. This first 12 h includes the period of peak electrolysis activity and battery damage, thus the risk of honey or sucralfate is low while the benefit is likely high.

Does the Pittsburgh Severity Score predict outcome in esophageal perforation?

Esophageal perforation is an uncommon and challenging surgical emergency associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. At present, no consensus exists on optimal management of the condition. The Pittsburgh Severity Score (PSS) is a tool intended to stratify perforation severity and guide treatment. However, there is a paucity of literature examining the validity of the score or its application in a UK population. This study aims to validate the PSS and explore its use in stratifying patients with esophageal perforation into distinct subgroups with differential outcomes in an independent UK study population.All patients treated for esophageal perforation at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham between September 2003 and October 2017 were included in this study. Cases were identified using a combination of ICD-10 and OPCS informatics search codes and prospective case collection. Data relating to the clinical presentation, diagnosis, management, and outcome of cases were recorded using a preformed data collection form. PSS predictive performance was assessed against five outcomes: rates of post-perforation and post-operative complications, in-hospital mortality, length of intensive care (ICU/HDU) stay, and total length of hospital stay.A total of 87 cases were identified, consisting of 48 (55%) iatrogenic perforations, 24 (28%) cases of spontaneous (Boerhaave's) perforation, and 15 perforations due to other etiologies (17%). Operative management was favored in this series, with 47% of all perforations being treated surgically. Overall in-hospital mortality was 13%, coupled with a median length of hospital stay of 24 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 12-49), of which a median of 2 days was spent in intensive care facilities (IQR: 0-14). A total of 46% of patients developed post-perforation complications, with 59% of the operatively managed cohort developing complications post-operatively.The PSS was not found to be significantly predictive of post-perforation complications (area under the ROC curve [AUROC]: 0.62, p = 0.053) or in-hospital mortality (AUROC: 0.69, p = 0.057) for the cohort as a whole. However, a subgroup analysis found the accuracy of the PSS to vary considerably by etiology, being significantly predictive of post-perforation complications within the subgroup of Boerhaave's perforations (AUROC: 0.86, p = 0.004).In conclusion, we found that the PSS has some utility in stratifying esophageal perforation severity and predicting specific patient outcomes. However, it appears to be of more value when applied to the subgroup of patients with Boerhaave's perforations.

Surgical management of early and late esophageal perforation.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal perforation is a rare and life-threating problem with a 10%-40% mortality rate. Early diagnosis and treatment are important for prevention of complications. Strategies for treatment of esophageal perforation have been controversial for many years, especially in cases of late presentation. METHODS: We prospectively studied 27 patients (12 male, 17 female, mean age 42.7 ± 17.8 years) who presented with esophageal perforation from 1996 to 2015, and evaluated the results of surgical treatment. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to time of presentation: early (<24 h), intermediate (24-72 h), and late (>72 h). We also considered the etiology and site of esophageal perforation, complications, and mortality. RESULTS: Surgery was performed in 5 patients in the early group, 7 in the moderate group, and 15 in the late group. Primary repair was carried out in 5 cases, primary repair and reinforcement with a flap in 10, esophageal resection and reconstruction in 8, and a T-tube stent was used in 4. Four patients developed a fistula postoperatively, and there was one death due to respiratory failure. No relationship was found between complications and the cause of perforation, time of presentation, or type of treatment. CONCLUSION: In patients without sepsis, primary repair can be an option even in those presenting late after esophageal perforation, with an acceptable result.

Dose escalation to 84 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy in stage III NSCLC appears excessively toxic: Results from a prematurely terminated randomized phase II trial.

OBJECTIVES: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the mainstay treatment for NSCLC stage III disease. To investigate whether radiation dose escalation based on individual normal tissue constraints can improve outcome, the Swedish lung cancer study group launched this randomized phase II trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NSCLC patients with stage III disease, good performance status (0-1) and adequate lung function (FEV1 > 1.0 L and CO diffusion capacity > 40%) received three cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m2 day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m2 day 1 and 8) every third week. Radiotherapy started concurrently with the second cycle, with either 2 Gy daily, 5 days a week, to 68 Gy (A) or escalated therapy (B) based on constraints to the spinal cord, esophagus and lungs up to 84 Gy by adding an extra fraction of 2 Gy per week. RESULTS: A pre-planned safety analysis revealed excessive toxicity and decreased survival in the escalated arm, and the study was stopped. Thirty-six patients were included during 2011-2013 (56% male, 78% with adenocarcinoma, 64% with PS 0 and 53% with stage IIIB). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 11 and 17 months in arm B compared to the encouraging results of 28 and 45 months in the standard arm. The 1- and 3-year survival rates were 56% and 33% (B) and 72% and 56% (A), respectively. There were seven toxicity-related deaths due to esophageal perforations and pneumonitis: five in the escalated group and two with standard treatment. CONCLUSION: Dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy to 84 Gy to primary tumor and nodal disease is hazardous, with a high risk of excessive toxicity, whereas modern standard dose chemoradiotherapy with proper staging given in the control arm shows a promising outcome with a median survival of 45 months and a 3-year survival of 56% (NCT01664663).

Primary and Rescue Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy in the Management of Esophageal Perforations and Leaks.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the efficacy of primary and rescue endoluminal vacuum (EVAC) therapy in the treatment of esophageal perforations and leaks. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively gathered, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved database of EVAC therapy patients at our center from July 2013 to September 2016. RESULTS: In all, 13 patients were treated for esophageal perforations or leaks. Etiologies included iatrogenic injury (n = 8), anastomotic leak (n = 2), Boerhaave syndrome (n = 1), and bronchoesophageal fistula (n = 2). In total, 10 patients underwent primary treatment and three were treated with rescue therapy. Mean Perforation Severity Scores (PSSs) in the primary and rescue treatment groups were 7 and 10, respectively. Average defect size was 2.4 (range: 0.5-6) cm. The rescue group had a shorter mean time to defect closure (25 vs. 33 days). In all, 12 of 13 defects healed. One death occurred following the implementation of comfort care. One therapy-specific complication occurred. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was longer in the rescue group (72 vs. 53 days); however, the intensive care unit (ICU) duration was similar between groups. Totally, 10 patients (83%) resumed an oral diet after successful defect closure. CONCLUSION: Utilized as either a primary or rescue therapy, EVAC therapy appears to be beneficial in the management of esophageal perforations or leaks.

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.

Outcome after stenting and débridement for spontaneous esophageal rupture.

OBJECTIVES: Surgical repair has been the most common treatment of esophageal effort rupture (Boerhaave syndrome). Stent-induced sealing of the perforation has increasingly been used with promising results. We present our eight years´ experience with stent-based and organ-preserving treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 15 consecutive patients with Boerhaave syndrome from February 2007 to May 2015 were retrospectively registered in a database. Treatment was sealing of the perforation by stenting, chest tube drainage and débridement of the contaminated thorax. After median 25 months nine out of 10 patients responded to questions on fatigue and Ogilvie's dysphagia score. RESULTS: Fifteen patients, aged median 67.5 years (range 39-88), had a primary hospital stay of 20 days (range 1-80 days). Overall in-hospital mortality was 13%. Observation time was 44 months (range 0-87) and 10 patients were alive of August 2017. Ten patients (67%) needed surgical chest débridement. Five patients (33%) were restented for leakage, migration and for stent removal. Eleven patients (73%) had complications, which included pleural empyema (n = 4), fatal aortic bleeding, lung arterial bleeding, lung embolism, drain-induced lung laceration and respiratory failure. Dysphagia score was low (median 0.5) meaning that they were able to feed themselves. Total fatigue score (mean 14.6) was slightly increased (p = .05) compared with a reference population. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate after initial stenting of effort rupture seems to be comparable to standard surgical repair. Most patients required further intervention, either by restenting and/or surgical débridement. The functional result in these patients was satisfactory.

Neonatal oesophageal perforation: The role for non-operative management.

AIM: Isolated oesophageal perforation in neonates is a rare but potentially life-threatening condition. Although management has historically been operative, conservative management (antibiotics, bowel rest, parenteral nutrition) is now more routinely used. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management of this condition in two large neonatal surgical centres. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted for neonates admitted to The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Canada) or The Royal Children's Hospital (Melbourne, Australia) with a diagnosis of oesophageal perforation, from 2006 to 2016. Patients with oesophageal atresia or tracheo-oesophageal fistula were excluded. Data were collected from chart review regarding demographics, clinical course, management and outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven neonates with oesophageal perforation were identified over a 10-year period at the two centres. Median gestational age at birth was 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 24.2-28.8) and the majority (7/11, 64%) of neonates were extremely low birthweight. Diagnosis was made on day 1 of life for 9 of 11 (81%) neonates and was secondary to nasogastric tube insertion in 10 of 11 (91%) neonates. Only four (36%) neonates had symptomatic complications. All neonates were managed with bowel rest and intravenous antibiotics for a median of 7 days (interquartile range 7-10); two patients required operative intervention. Three neonates (27%) developed chronic lung disease and two (19%) died prior to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Oesophageal perforation is severe complication secondary to instrumentation of the upper gastrointestinal tract in neonates. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial. Non-operative management is effective for the majority, though morbidity is common.