胸段食管骨性异物穿孔的分类与外科治疗

目的 探讨骨性异物所致胸段食管破裂穿孔的分类及其治疗方法.方法 对57例胸段食管骨性异物破裂穿孔患者根据食管损伤性质和继发感染程度进行分类,分别采取不同手术方式并总结其疗效.结果 Ⅰ类为食管破裂、纵隔无脓肿形成,共计17例;其中直接食管破口连续缝合修补7例,直接缝合修补后,外穿孔部位用肋间肌加强6例,心包和带蒂大网膜加强各2例.Ⅱ类为纵膈脓肿期,共计13例;其中食管穿孔切除、胃代食管10例,纵隔脓肿清除胸腔引流3例.Ⅲ类为脓胸期,即骨性异物穿破食管后感染波及胸腔而形成脓胸,共计21例;其中食管穿孔切除、一期胃带食管12例,食管穿孔切除、二期胃或结肠带食管9例.Ⅳ类为脓肿侵犯周围器官并形成主动脉-食管瘘或气管食管瘘,共计6例;气管瘘修补、大网膜填塞、二期胃或结肠代食管术4例,病变段血管切除、人工血管置换、二期胃或结肠代食管2例.Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ类的51例患者50例获治愈,1例死于脓毒症引起的多脏器功能衰竭综合征.Ⅳ类的6例患者术前准备时麻醉诱导过程死亡1例,手术死亡1例,死因皆为食管-主动脉瘘导致的大出血,其余4例治愈.结论 对骨性异物所致胸段食管损伤病变进行分类,并采取相应方法治疗有助于提高疗效;一旦确诊均应采取积极的手术方式.     

Esophageal perforation in adults: aggressive, conservative treatment lowers morbidity and mortality

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of aggressive conservative therapy in patients with esophageal perforation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The treatment of esophageal perforation remains controversial with a bias toward early primary repair, resection, and/or proximal diversion. This review evaluates an alternate approach with a bias toward aggressive drainage of fluid collections and frequent CT and gastographin UGI examinations to evaluate progress. METHODS: From 1992 to 2004, 47 patients with esophageal perforation (10 proximal, 37 thoracic) were treated (18 patients early [<24 hours], 29 late). There were 31 male and 16 females (ages 18-90 years). The etiology was iatrogenic (25), spontaneous (14), trauma (3), dissecting thoracic aneurysm (3), and 1 each following a Stretta procedure and Blakemore tube placement. RESULTS: Six of 10 cervical perforations underwent surgery (3 primary repair, 3 abscess drainage). Nine of 10 perforations healed at discharge. In 37 thoracic perforations, 2 underwent primary repair (1 iatrogenic, 1 spontaneous) and 4 underwent limited thoracotomy. Thirty-4 patients (4 cervical, 28 thoracic) underwent nonoperative treatment. Thirteen of the 14 patients with spontaneous perforation (thoracic) underwent initial nonoperative care. Overall mortality was 4.2% (2 of 47 patients). These deaths represent 2 of 37 thoracic perforations (5.4%). There were no deaths in the 34 patients treated nonoperatively. Esophageal healing occurred in 43 of 45 surviving patients (96%). Subsequent operations included colon interposition in 2, esophagectomy for malignancy in 3, and esophagectomy for benign stricture in 2. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive treatment of sepsis and control of esophageal leaks leak lowers mortality and morbidity, allow esophageal healing, and avoid major surgery in most patients.     

Thoracic esophageal perforations: a decade of experience

BACKGROUND: Perforation of the thoracic esophagus is a formidable challenge. Treatment and outcome are largely determined by the time to presentation. We reviewed our experience with esophageal perforations to determine the overall mortality and whether the time to presentation should influence management strategy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients treated for perforation of the thoracic esophagus from 1990 to 2001. There were 26 patients (14 men and 12 women; median age, 62 years; range, 36 to 89 years). Fourteen patients presented within 24 hours (early), and 12 patients presented after 24 hours (delayed). Nine of the 12 patients in the delayed group presented after 72 hours. The causes of the perforations were as follows: instrumentation (19 patients), Boerhaave's syndrome (2 patients), intraoperative injury (1 patient), and other (4 patients). In the early group, 3 patients were treated conservatively, 10 patients underwent primary repair, and 1 patient required esophagectomy for carcinoma. In the delayed group, 3 patients were treated conservatively, 6 underwent successful repair of the perforation, 1 had a T-tube placement through the perforation and eventually required an esophagectomy, and 2 had an esophagectomy as primary surgical treatment. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 3.8% (1 of 26) and morbidity was 38% (10 of 26). Persistent leaks occurred in 3 patients, 2 after primary repair and 1 after T-tube drainage. All patients selected for conservative management successfully healed their perforation. CONCLUSIONS: Primary repair can be carried out in most cases of thoracic esophageal perforation regardless of time to presentation, with a low mortality rate. A small but carefully selected group of patients may be treated successfully without operation. Esophagectomy should be reserved for patients with carcinoma or extensive necrosis of the esophagus.     

Surgical treatment of iatrogenic perforations of the distal third of the esophagus. Personal experience

AIM: The esophageal perforations are associated with a high mortality and morbidity when they are not diagnosed and treated quickly. The aim of our study is to analyze the treatment and prognosis of the distal iatrogenic esophageal perforations on the basis of time of onset, concomitant disease and size of perforations. METHODS: The retrospective review was performed on 10 patients treated for distal iatrogenic esophageal perforations at our Institution from 1994 to 2003. The cause of perforations was: pneumatic dilation (7 patients) and esophageal endoprosthesis placing (3 patients). Seven patients presented within 24 h (Group A), and 3 patients presented after 24 h (Group B). In Group A, 4 patients underwent primary repair, 2 patients required esophagectomy and 1 patient was treated conservatively. In Group B, 2 patients were treated conservatively and 1 patient required an esophagectomy. RESULTS: Hospital morbidity was 20% and mortality was 30%. In Group A no patients died. In Group B hospital mortality was 100%. The most common cause of death was multiorgan failure resulting from sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis for esophageal perforations is influenced by the time elapsed between diagnosis and treatment. Esophagectomy is indicated for patients with extensive perforation and necrosis of the esophagus when primary repair cannot be carried out. It is indicated also as treatment for the concomitant disease.     

Personal management of 57 consecutive patients with esophageal perforation

BACKGROUND: Esophageal perforation is a surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. There is no consensus regarding the appropriate management of this life-threatening condition. METHODS: A retrospective review was made of 57 patients with esophageal perforations treated at the Department of Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, between September 1986 and December 2001. RESULTS: Forty-four (77%) perforations were due to iatrogenic causes, spontaneous perforations occurred in 6 patients (11%). Foreign body ingestion caused perforation in 4 (7%), followed by blunt trauma in 2 (4%) and caustic injury in 1 patient. A total of 6 (11%) patients had cervical injury, 49 (86%) patients had thoracic, and 1 patient had abdominal esophageal injury. Thirty-three (58%) patients underwent emergency esophagectomy, 4 (7%) patients underwent primary repair, and 4 patients (7%) underwent drainage alone, whereas 16 (28%) patients were managed by nonoperative treatment. Using these treatment principles, we achieved 86% survival rate for all patients. Eight (14%) patients died. Spontaneous perforation had the highest mortality (67%). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal perforation needs aggressive treatment. The treatment depends mainly on two factors: perforation in a healthy esophagus, and perforation with a preexisting underlying intrinsic esophageal disease causing distal obstruction. Esophageal perforation associated with stenotic lesions (benign or malignant) needs esophageal extirpation. Perforation in a healthy esophagus should be treated by primary closure if encountered early. Nonoperative conservative treatment is appropriate when esophageal perforation is encountered late.     

The Sealing Effect of a Fibrin Tissue Patch on the Esophageal Perforation Area in Primary Repair

Background The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of the fibrin tissue patch and to analyze its use in patients with esophageal perforation. Methods We studied 28 patients who were diagnosed with esophageal perforation between January 1990 and January 2006 at Akdeniz University Hospital. Sixteen (57.14%) were male. The average age was 59 ± 9 years. We performed surgery and primary repair reinforcement even if the diagnosis of esophageal perforation was late. Results Twenty-three (82.14%) perforations were the result of endoscopic instruments; spontaneous perforations occurred in three (10.71%) patients. Postoperative complication (Heller myotomy) caused perforation in one patient (3.57%) and blunt trauma in one patient (3.57%). Three (10.71%) patients had cervical perforation, and 25 (89.29%) patients had thoracic esophageal perforation. Twelve (42.86%) patients underwent emergency surgery (within the first 24 h). Ten (35.71%) patients underwent surgery within 48 h, and the remaining 6 (21.43%) underwent surgery after 48 h. Nine (32.14%) patients had primary repair, 7 (25%) had reinforcement of the primary repair with fibrin tissue patch, 7 (25%) had esophagectomy and gastric pull-up, and 2 (7.14%) had drainage and placement of metallic stents. In four patients of the nine who had primary repair, fistula complication was detected, whereas in only one of the seven who had reinforcement of the primary repair with fibrin tissue patch was a fistula detected. Three patients (10.71%), two of whom had Boerhaave’s syndrome, died. Conclusions Surgical primary repair with fibrin tissue patch is the most successful treatment option in the management of esophageal perforation.     

Management of esophageal perforations: the value of aggressive surgical treatment

BACKGROUND: The treatment of esophageal perforation remains controversial, particularly in terms of the type of operative therapy. This report analyzed results of an aggressive treatment protocol. METHODS: Patients with esophageal perforations in a normal esophagus or those with a motor disorder were treated by operative closure. All defects were buttressed or closed by either muscle or pleura. Sternocleidomastoid muscle was used to buttress or primarily close the defects in the neck, and a flap of diaphragm was often used for thoracic perforation. Patients with perforated cancer or severe underlying disease had an esophagectomy. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients had operation: 50 underwent preservation of the esophagus after closure of the perforation and 14 underwent resection. The leak rate was 17%, but all healed. One patient treated with primary closure died (1.5% mortality); only 1 patient required subsequent esophagectomy. Thirteen of 14 patients treated with esophagectomy had an excellent result. CONCLUSION: The aggressive approach to esophageal perforations with attempt at uniform closure or resection of severe disease produced excellent results with reduced morbidity and low mortality.     

Esophagectomy for esophageal disruption

When esophageal disruption occurs in the presence of preexisting esophageal disease or is associated with sepsis or fluid and electrolyte imbalance, aggressive and definitive therapy often provides the only chance for patient salvage. Twenty-four adults (average age, 59 years) with intrathoracic esophageal perforations underwent esophagectomy: 15, transhiatal esophagectomy without thoracotomy; and 9, transthoracic esophagectomy. Restoration of alimentary continuity with an immediate cervical esophagogastric anastomosis was carried out in 13 patients. Eleven underwent a cervical or anterior thoracic esophagostomy, and 10 of them had a subsequent colonic (7) or gastric (3) interposition from 4 to 32 weeks (average time, 8.6 weeks) later. The perforations were due to esophageal instrumentation (9 patients), acute caustic ingestion (2), emesis (2), intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomotic disruption (2), and other causes (9). Preexisting esophageal disease in 20 patients included chronic strictures (10 patients), reflux esophagitis (3), esophageal cancer (3), achalasia (2), diffuse spasm (2), and monilial esophagitis (1 patient). Ten patients were operated on within 12 hours after the injury; 3, within 12 to 24 hours; and 11, within three to 45 days (average interval, 6.6 days). There were three hospital deaths (13%). Nineteen of the 21 survivors were able to swallow comfortably until the time of death or latest follow-up. Aggressive diagnosis and aggressive treatment of life-threatening esophageal perforations are advocated. Conservative procedures (repair, diversion, or drainage) for a perforation with preexisting esophageal disease often inflict more morbidity than esophageal resection, which eliminates the perforation, the source of sepsis, and the underlying esophageal disease. The decision to restore alimentary continuity in a single stage must be individualized.     

Treatment of Early and Delayed Esophageal Perforation

Esophageal perforations are life threatening emergencies associated with high morbidity and mortality. We report on 22 consecutive patients (age 20–86; 13 female and 9 male) with an oesophageal perforation treated at the university hospital Duesseldorf. The patients' charts were reviewed and follow-up was completed for all patients until demission, healed reconstruction or death. Patients' history, clinical presentation, time interval to surgical presentation, and treatment modality were recorded and correlated with patients' outcome. Six esophageal perforations were due to a Boerhaave-syndrome, eleven caused by endoscopic perforation, two after osteosynthesis of the cervical spine and three foreign body induced. In 7 patients a primary local suture was performed, in 4 cases a supplemental muscle flap was interposed, and 7 patients underwent an oesophageal resection. Four patients were treated without surgery (three esophageal stent implantations, one conservative treatment). Eleven patients (50 %) were presented within 24 h of perforation, and 11 patients (50 %) afterwards. Time delay correlates with survival. In 17 (80.9 %) cases a surgical sufficient reconstruction could be achieved. One (4.7 %) patient is waiting for reconstruction after esophagectomy. Four (18.2 %) patients died. A small subset of patients can be treated conservatively by stenting of the Esophagus, if the patient presents early. In the majority of patients a primary repair (muscle flap etc.) can be performed with good prognosis. If the patient presents delayed with extensive necrosis or mediastinitis, oesophagectomy and secondary repair is the only treatment option with high mortality.     

Esophageal perforations. The need for an individualized approach

Since 1971 we have treated 33 patients with esophageal perforation caused by instrumentation in 21 patients, trauma in six, and spontaneous perforation in six. Chest pain, fever, mediastinal air, and an abnormal esophagogram were frequent but not invariable findings. Surgical therapy, consisting of primary repair and drainage in 12 patients, drainage alone in five, esophageal diversion in two, and esophagogastrectomy in one, was initiated within 24 hours in 14 patients, all of whom survived. A delay of more than 24 hours in six patients resulted in 33% mortality. Nine patients with small instrumental perforations were treated successfully with antibiotics alone, while three other patients with late traumatic (n = 2) and spontaneous (n = 1) perforations were treated nonoperatively; all three died. Overall mortality for the series was 15.5%. Except for small contained instrumental injuries, esophageal perforations demand prompt exploration, with primary repair and drainage as the procedure of choice.     

Long-term observation following perforation and rupture of the esophagus

A follow-up study of 35 patients was performed 1.5 to 22 years after simple closure and drainage of the esophagus for nonmalignant intrathoracic perforation or rupture, with special attention to dysphagia. Of the seven patients with spontaneous rupture, only one required supplementary postoperative treatment, for severe reflux esophagitis. None of the eight patients with iatrogenic lesion and no prior esophageal disorder had any dysphagia postoperatively. Postoperative swallowing problems were absent in 13 of the 20 patients with perforation caused by examination or treatment of an already diseased esophagus. Four required repeated esophageal dilation and three underwent further surgery. Simple closure and drainage of nonmalignant intrathoracic perforation or rupture of the esophagus is concluded to be a safe procedure in regard to late postoperative dysphagia.     

Esophageal perforation: a therapeutic challenge

The records of 64 patients with esophageal perforation treated since 1958 were reviewed. There were 19 cervical perforations, 44 thoracic perforations, and one abdominal perforation. Thirty-one perforations (48%) were due to injury from intraluminal causes. Twenty (31%) resulted from extraluminal causes: penetrating wounds, 11; blunt trauma, 3; and paraesophageal operations, 6. Eleven (17%) were spontaneous perforations, and two (3%) were caused by perforation of an esophageal malignancy. Ten (91%) of 11 patients with cervical perforations treated less than 24 hours after injury survived compared with 6 (75%) of 8 patients treated more than 24 hours after injury; hence 16 (84%) of the 19 patients in the cervical group survived. In the thoracic group, 19 patients were treated within 24 hours with 16 survivors (84%) compared with 25 patients treated beyond 24 hours with 12 survivors (48%); hence 28 (64%) of the 44 patients in the thoracic group survived. The patient with an abdominal perforation survived. Thirty patients underwent primary suture closure of the perforation, and 25 (83%) lived. Seventeen patients had drainage, and 10 (59%) lived. Total esophagectomy was performed in 9 patients, 7 (78%) of whom survived. Exclusion-diversion procedures were performed in 5 patients, and 1 (20%) survived.     

The diagnosis and treatment of esophageal perforations resulting from nonmalignant causes

Esophageal perforations are extremely difficult to diagnose and treat. We report herein our results of a review of 26 patients with esophageal perforation which were spontaneous in 11, iatrogenic in 11, and caused by a foreign body in 4. Surgical treatment was performed in 7 of the patients with spontaneous rupture, but the remaining 19 patients were treated conservatively. The abnormality was found by plain radiography (X-ray) in 22 (85%) of the 26 patients, and by computed tomography (CT) in all 13 patients who underwent this procedure. The detection rates by esophagography and esophagoscopy were 100%, or all of 25 patients examined, and 60%, or 9 of 15 patients examined, respectively. Of 12 patients with underlying diseases, 4 (33%) died after the perforation, whereas only 1 (7%) of 14 patients without any underlying disease died. Postoperative empyema developed in all of 3 patients treated by intraoperative unfixed intrathoracic drainage (UID), but in none of the 4 treated by fixed intrathoracic drainage (FID). Conservative treatment achieved satisfactory results for spontaneous esophageal ruptures confined to the mediastinum, and for iatrogenic perforations and esophageal perforations caused by foreign bodies, provided there was no serious underlying disease such as advanced cirrhosis. Moreover, intraoperative FID proved useful in helping to prevent postoperative empyema.     

Outcome after failed initial therapy for rupture of the esophagus or intrathoracic stomach

Survival after rupture of the esophagus or intrathoracic stomach is improving, but continued leakage after initial therapy remains a problem. We retrospectively reviewed patients with rupture of the esophagus or intrathoracic stomach to determine the prevalence of continued leakage after initial therapy and how this complication affects outcome. Our review included 58 patients, 38 (66%) of whom had preexisting esophageal disease. The etiology of perforation was spontaneous rupture in 17, penetrating trauma in four, and iatrogenic injury in 35; two patients had perforation from other causes. Initial therapy consisted of drainage in eight, primary repair in 24, resection in 18, bypass in two, and observation in six. The overall mortality rate was 12% (7 of 58 patients) and continuing leaks were identified in 21% (12 of 58 patients). These leaks were unrelated to patient age, existence of prior disease, or delay in therapy but were more common after initial treatment by primary repair with or without pleural flap coverage compared to other management strategies (6 of 9 vs. 6 of 49; P < 0.001). Salvage therapy with survival was possible in 10 (83%) of 12 patients by means of esophagectomy in four, exclusion in one, drainage in two, or observation in three. Continuing leaks can be avoided by providing soft tissue coverage other than pleura over a primary repair and by not leaving an intrathoracic esophageal stump. Aggressive management of continuing leaks results in survival in more than 80% of patients.     

Primary esophageal repair for Boerhaave's syndrome whatever the free interval between perforation and treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Boerhaave's syndrome is the most sinister cause of esophageal perforation responsible with mortality rate ranging from 20 to 30%. Combination of mediastinal contamination with microorganisms, gastric acid and digestives enzymes, long free interval between injury and initiation of treatment causes severe mediastinitis which is fatal in most untreated cases. The aim of this paper is to emphasize primary esophageal repair and resuscitation whatever the free interval from rupture and repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients treated for Boerhaave's syndrome in our department from January 1980 to February 2003 was performed. The principle of treatment was surgical treatment and avoidance of esophageal exclusion or esophagectomy whichever was possible. RESULTS: There were 25 patients (17 males and 8 females). All patients were operated on by primary esophageal repair, except for three who underwent immediate exclusion of the esophagus and one patient who deceased on arrival before being operated. Patients were classified according to free interval between perforation and treatment: group 1 (n=9; 36%) within the 24 h (range from 12 to 24 h) and group 2 (n=16; 64%) more than 24 h (range from 2 to 17 days). Altogether 6 patients deceased (24%). In hospital mortality rate for groups 1 and 2 was, respectively, 44% (four patients) and 13% (two patients), not significantly different. Mean hospital stay was 63 days. Two patients developed anastomotic leakage needing esophagectomy and retrosternal coloplasty in one or more steps. One patient developed pleural abscess treated by percutaneous drainage. Three patients presented temporary symptomatic esophageal stenosis, of whom one underwent dilation. CONCLUSIONS: Long free interval before treatment does not preclude primary esophageal repair in Boerhaave's syndrome. Esophageal exclusion may be more often than not avoided in most cases.     

Treatment of Esophageal Perforation in a Referral Center in Taiwan

Purpose The high mortality associated with esophageal perforation can be reduced by aggressive surgery and good critical care. We report our experience of treating esophageal perforation in a clinic in Taiwan.Methods The subjects were 28 patients who underwent surgery for a benign esophageal perforation.Results The esophageal perforation was iatrogenic in 11 patients, spontaneous in 8, and caused by foreign body injury in 9. Most (22/28) of the patients were seen longer than 24 h after perforation, and 77% had empyema preoperatively. The perforation was located in the cervical area in 5 patients and in the thoracic esophagus in 23. We performed primary repair in 24 patients, esophagectomy in 3, and drainage in 1. Leakage occurred after primary repair in ten (41%) patients, resulting in one death, and two patients died of other diseases. Postoperative leakage prolonged the hospital stay but had no impact on mortality. Overall survival was 90%. Univariate analysis revealed that age, timing of treatment, and cause and location of the perforation influenced outcome, but multivariate analysis failed to identify a predictor of mortality.Conclusions Early diagnosis and intervention are crucial to prevent morbidity and mortality in patients with esophageal perforation. Primary repair is feasible even if the diagnosis is delayed.     

Diagnosis and management of esophageal perforations.

Esophageal perforation remains a difficult diagnostic and management problem. Recommendations regarding treatment remain controversial. A 15-year experience with perforation of the esophagus from all causes was reviewed at Louisiana State University and Veterans Administration, Medical Centers (Shreveport, LA). The majority of the injuries involved the thoracic esophagus (28 or 54%), followed by the cervical (21 or 40%), and the intraabdominal esophagus (3 or 6%). Iatrogenic causes constituted most of the injuries (52%), followed by external trauma (23%), barogenic rupture (15%), and ingested foreign bodies (10%). Diatrizoate methylglucamine 66 per cent, sodium diatrizoate 10 per cent (Gastrografin; Squibb, Princeton, NJ) contrast studies and flexible esophagoscopy were performed in 44 and 22 patients, respectively. In the cervical esophagus, contrast studies were more sensitive and specific than endoscopy (P less than .01), but both studies were equally effective as diagnostic methods in thoracic perforations. Cervical perforations were treated with either drainage alone (7 patients) or primary repair with drainage (14 patients) with an operative mortality of 4.8 per cent. Several procedures were used in thoracic perforations, which carried a mortality of 36 per cent and were more lethal than cervical tears (P less than 0.2). Any thoracic esophageal perforation treated more than 24 hours after the onset of symptoms, irrespective of what procedure was used, was associated with a significantly higher mortality than if operated on earlier (P less than .001). Five patients with perforated carcinomas were treated by esophageal resection with no mortality. Significantly higher mortality was seen with a delay in diagnosis, thoracic perforations, and Boerhaave's Syndrome. A subset of patients with perforated carcinomas may benefit from esophageal resection with delayed reconstruction.     

Treatment of thoracic esophageal perforations

Objective

To evaluate the results of the treatment of patients with thoracic esophageal perforation in order to determine the most appropriate management of this entity.

Patients and method

We performed a retrospective study of 21 patients (mean age 59 years; 24-82) who presented with thoracic esophageal perforation to our hospital between 1991 and 2004.

Results

In 13 patients (62%) treatment was performed within 24 hours. In the remaining 8 patients the mean delay was 7.2 (2-12) days. In 4 patients (26%) the perforation was confined to the mediastinum and conservative treatment was provided. Of these patients, 1 developed empyema and underwent esophageal resection. Extramediastinal involvement was confirmed in 17 patients (73%) and was treated by a variety of surgical procedures: esophagectomy (n=2), drainage alone (n=2), primary closure (n=2) and reinforced primary repair (n= 11). Two patients with simple closure and 1 with reinforced primary closure developed leakage of the suture line resulting in death. The 3 patients who underwent esophagectomy survived. In patients with perforation confined to the mediastinum mortality was 0%, whereas in those with extramediastinal involvement mortality was 23%.

Conclusions

Thoracic esophageal perforation leads to high mortality rates and requires early diagnosis and immediate treatment. Conservative management is appropriate in only a few selected patients. When surgical treatment is indicated, we advocate reinforced primary repair regardless of the interval between injury and operation, except when the esophagus is in such poor condition that esophagectomy is the only option.     

Esophageal reconstruction for benign disease: self-assessment of functional outcome and quality of life

Background. Little information exists regarding functional outcome and quality of life after esophagectomy and subsequent esophageal reconstruction for benign disease as evaluated by the patients themselves.

Methods. Eighty-one patients completed a combined two-part questionnaire regarding esophageal function and quality of life (MOS SF-36) a median of 9.8 years (range, 10 months to 18.9 years) after esophageal reconstruction for benign disease. There were 43 men (53.1%) and 38 women (46.9%). Median age at time of esophageal reconstruction was 51 years (range, 6 to 78 years). Intestinal continuity was established with stomach in 58 patients (71.6%), colon in 16 patients (19.8%), and small bowel in 7 patients (8.6%).

Results. Dysphagia to solids was present in 48 patients (59.3%) and 27 patients (33.3%) required at least one postoperative dilatation. Heartburn was present in 50 patients (61.7%) which required medication for control in 37 patients (45.7%). The number of meals per day was three to four in 58 patients (71.6%), more than four in 15 patients (18.5%), less than three in 6 patients (7.4%), and unknown in 2 patients (2.5%). The size of each meal was smaller than preoperatively in 46 patients (56.8%), larger in 22 patients (27.2%), unchanged in 12 patients (14.8%), and unknown in 1 patient (1.2%). The number of bowel movements per day increased in 37 patients (45.7%), was unchanged in 36 patients (44.4%), and decreased in 8 patients (9.9%). Resection for perforation was associated with smaller postoperative meals compared with resection for stricture (p < 0.05). Age, sex, and type of esophageal reconstruction did not affect late functional outcome. Regarding quality of life, physical functioning, social functioning, and health perception were decreased (p < 0.05). No significant change was observed in role-physical, mental health, bodily pain, energy/fatigue, and role-emotional scores.

Conclusions. Self-assessment of postoperative esophageal symptoms after esophagectomy and reconstruction for benign disease demonstrates that symptoms are frequently present at long-term follow-up and unaffected by the type of reconstruction.     

Ruptures and perforations of the esophagus: the case for conservative supportive management

A series of 31 patients treated for ruptures and perforations of the intrathoracic esophagus is reviewed. Eighteen of these patients underwent major thoracotomy; 11 were treated with minor procedures. Two died before treatment could be implemented. Of the 18 undergoing major operations, 7 died; among the 11 managed conservatively there was only 1 death. Based on this experience, we conclude that major surgical repair for esophageal perforation is often unnecessary. It has the additional drawback of sometimes resulting in equally serious secondary procedures.