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.     

Experience with the Grillo pleural wrap procedure in 18 patients with perforation of the thoracic esophagus.

Perforation of the thoracic esophagus may be fatal unless diagnosed promptly and treated with an effective operation. The wide mortality range in different reports reflects the importance of these two factors. This range spans from as low as 11%, if operation is within 24 hours, to greater than 50% after two to three days. The high mortality with delayed treatment is principally due to inability to surgically close the perforation. Eighteen patients (aged from 31 to 78 years) were treated four hours to 14 days after thoracic esophageal perforation (less than 24 hours: 7 patients; 24 to 72 hours: 7 patients; greater than 72 hours: 4 patients). In 14 patients the perforation was sutured, after which the suture line was buttressed with a circumferential wrap of parietal pleura, originally described by Grillo. Underlying esophageal pathology was corrected and wide mediastinal drainage was instituted. All 14 patients recovered and were discharged from the hospital after a median stay of 20 days. Two patients had minor leaks at the suture line that soon closed. Four patients had perforations too extensive to close. Of these, one was resected, the Urschel procedure was used in two, and the Abbott T-tube drainage was used in one. Three of the four patients died. It was quite significant that the pleural wrap was equally effective with both early (6 patients) and delayed perforations (8 patients). These data indicate that the pleural wrap should be used routinely. Extensive perforations that cannot be closed should probably be treated by resection and drainage, followed by esophageal reconstruction at a later time.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Iatrogenic perforations of the esophagus and hypopharynx--5 year experience at the Center for Esophageal Surgery

Iatrogenic perforations of the esophagus and hypopharynx are important problem, due to diagnostic difficulties, controversies about adequate treatment, and high morbidity and mortality rate. Incidence of iatrogenic perforations is from 50 to 75% of all perforations. In the period from April 1999. to April 2004, 15 patients with iatrogenic perforation of the esophagus and hypopharynx were treated at the Department of esophageal surgery, First University Surgical Hospital in Belgrade. In majority of patients iatrogenic perforation occured during endoscopic interventional procedure (endoscopic removal of ingested foreign body--10 pts, endotracheal intubation--2 pts, intraoperative iatrogenic perforation--2 pts, pneumatic dilatation--1 pt). Surgical treatment was performed in 12 (80%) pts and 3 (20%) pts were treated conservatively. Surgical approach was cervicoabdominal, thoracoabdominal and cervicothoracoabdominal in 9.1 and 2 pts, respectively. Among 12 operated pts, primary repair of the esophagus was performed in 5 pts, and esophageal resection or exclusion in 7 pts. Overall mortality rate was 13.3% (2 pts), in surgical group 8.3% (1 pt) and in conservatively treated group 33.3% (1 pt). Iatrogenic perforations of the esophagus and hypopharynx are diagnostic and therapeutic problem. Awareness of the possibility of esophageal perforation during instrumental manipulations and early diagnosis is essential for successful, individually adapted, and in most cases surgical, treatment.     

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.     

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.     

Current Treatment and Outcome of Esophageal Perforations in Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 75 Studies

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.     

Operative and nonoperative management of esophageal perforations.

During a 21-year period, 72 patients were treated for esophageal perforations; the diagnosis was made only at postmortem examination in 13 other patients. Fifty-eight of 85 patients (68%) sustained iatrogenic perforations, 11 patients (13%) had "spontaneous" perforation, nine patients (11%) had foreign body related perforation, and seven patients (8%) had perforation caused by external trauma. Eleven cervical perforations, contained between the cervical paravertebral structures, plus eight thoracic perforations, contained in the mediastinum, were treated with antibiotics, intravenous hydration, and nasogastric drainage. The mortality rate after this nonoperative approach was 16% (3/19 patients). Indications for operative treatment in 53 patients were hydropneumothorax with mediastinal emphysema, sepsis, shock and respiratory failure. The operative mortality rate in these instances was 17% (9/53 patients). Six of the nine patients who died had been operated on more than 24 hours after the onset of symptoms. For cervical perforations the best results were obtained by drainage plus repair of the perforation (mortality rate: 0%; 0/10 patients) and for thoracic perforations by suturing supported by a pedicled pleural flap (mortality rate: 11%; 1/9 patients). Simple drainage of thoracic perforation was followed by a mortality rate of 43% (3/7 patients).     

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.     

Functional Outcome After Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Perforation

Background. The functional results after treatment of intrathoracic esophageal perforations have been poorly documented.

Methods. A retrospective review of 42 patients who underwent treatment of intrathoracic esophageal perforation associated with benign esophageal disease was performed.

Results. Of 42 patients treated for esophageal perforation, 25 underwent primary repair, 15 underwent esophagectomy and reconstruction, 1 underwent cervical esophagostomy and drainage followed by esophageal resection, and 1 had drainage alone followed by primary repair. Among the patients treated with primary repair, at least one additional operation was required in 13 patients. Of the 15 patients treated with esophagectomy and reconstruction, none required further operative treatment. Follow-up averaged 3.7 years, and of the 36 survivors available for follow-up, 18 (50%) required at least one esophageal dilation postoperatively, and 3 (8.3%) have required regular dilations. Subjectively, 19 of 36 patients (53%) indicate that their swallowing is better than before perforation, it was the same in 12 (33%), and worse in 4 (11%).

Conclusions. In conclusion, approximately one third of patients surviving primary repair of esophageal perforations have continued difficulty with swallowing, which often requires esophageal dilations or esophageal reconstructive procedures, or a combination of both. Optimal long-term results are achieved when primary repair is performed in patients with motor disorders or a “normal” esophagus. Esophagectomy is a better option in those patients with strictures or diffuse esophageal disease.     

Mortality from iatrogenic esophageal perforations is high: experience of 54 treated cases

OBJECTIVE: To underline the severity of instrumental esophageal perforations and to discuss their management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients treated for instrumental esophageal perforation were collected retrospectively from 1980 to 1995 then prospectively since 1995 to 2000. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were treated for instrumental perforations. Perforation occurred after exploratory endoscopy (n = 24), endoscopic dilation (n = 13), attempted tracheal intubation (n = 5), foreign body extraction (n = 5), treatment of esophageal varices (n = 4), trans-esophageal echocardiography (n = 2), and duodenal prosthesis implantation (n = 1). Clinical manifestations were immediate in 18 cases and delayed in all others, with an interval before treatment ranging from 2 hours to 45 days (mean = 70 hours). All patients were operated after large spectrum antibiotherapy and intensive care, except 3 who were treated medically due to their poor general condition. Fourteen (26%) patients died, including the 3 non-operated ones. CONCLUSION: Instrumental esophageal perforations are associated with a high mortality, probably due to the poor general condition of the patients. Diagnosis of these perforations is often delayed. A good experience of endoscopic maneuveurs and adequate post-endoscopic monitoring could allow earlier surgical treatment with lower mortality.     

Esophageal repair following late diagnosis of intrathoracic perforation.

Multiple techniques, often complex, have been used to repair the esophagus following spontaneous, instrumental, or postsurgical perforation, especially when the diagnosis of perforation has been delayed. We have closed such perforations by wrapping a pedicled pleural flap around the esophagus, suturing it firmly over the area of leakage and around its margins. Due to inflammatory changes secondary to perforation, the flap is thickened and easily applied. Four patients were treated with this technique with success in every case. One patient with achalasia had sustained perforation three days prior to repair, another 30 hours following leakage at an esophageal suture line, the third 20 hours following esophagoscopic extraction of a necrosing foreign body, and the fourth 8 hours following hydrostatic bougienage for achalasia.     

Treatment of perforation in the healthy esophagus: analysis of 12 cases

Background Perforation of the esophagus still carries high morbidity and mortality rates, and there is no gold standard for the surgical treatment of choice. Materials and methods We reviewed the records of patients treated for esophageal perforation in the last decade at the General Surgery Unit of the University of Udine. Patients suffering from perforation secondary to surgical procedures or neoplastic disease were ruled out. Results Eight males (66.7%) and four females (33.3%) met the inclusion criteria. The cause of perforation was iatrogenic in seven cases (58.3%) and spontaneous in five (41.7%). The perforation was in the cervical esophagus in five cases (41.7%) and at thoracic level in the other seven (58.3%). Two patients (16.7%) with cervical lesions were treated conservatively; two (16.7%) underwent primary closure and the insertion of a drainage tube; one patient with a distal cervical lesion underwent diversion esophagostomy; six patients had resection of the entire thoracic esophagus and terminal cervical esophagostomy; one had segmental resection of the distal thoracic esophagus and lateral diversion esophagostomy. In the five patients whose reconstruction was postponed, esophagogastroplasty surgery was performed with an anastomosis at cervical level in four cases and at thoracic level in one. The global mortality rate was 25%. Late diagnosis—more than 24 h after the perforation event—seems to be the only factor correlated with fatal outcome (p = 0.045). Conclusions The choice of treatment for perforation in a healthy esophagus depends mainly on the site and size of the lesion. Cervical lesions may be amenable to conservative treatment or require primary surgical repair, while thoracic lesions with associated sepsis or major loss of substance demand an aggressive approach, with esophageal resection and delayed reconstruction seeming to be the safest option.     

Treatment of oncogenic emergencies in esophageal disease

Common oncogenic emergent conditions of the esophagus are esophageal fistula with malignancy and peptic ulcer, perforation by a foreign body, and rupture (Boerhaave's syndrome) and bleeding with malignancy. The current standard of palliative therapy for patients with malignant tracheoesophageal fistula is endoscopic replacement using covered self-expandable metallic stents in the esophagus and/or trachea. We successfully treated two patients with esophageal bleeding caused by malignant ulceration. To prevent the formation of an aortoesophageal fistula, a covered self-expandable metallic stent was inserted into the esophagus and aorta. Insertion of covered self-expandable metallic stents in patients with esophageal malignancies significantly improves dysphagia, seals fistulas/perforations and ulcerations, and is associated with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates. Spontaneous esophageal rupture, also known as Boerhaave's syndrome, is a rare condition. Primary repair is appropriate for ruptures diagnosed early. Many are diagnosed late and T-tube drainage may be the simplest way to manage this difficult condition in this situation.     

Treatment of endoscopic esophageal perforation

Background: The increasing usage of flexible endoscopy leads to a higher incidence of esophageal perforations, whose treatment strategies (conservative or operative) still are discussed controversially. We present our experiences and therapy concepts in relation to 75 iatrogenic esophageal perforations. Patients: Between 1983 and 1997, 75 patients were treated for endoscopic perforation of the esophagus. The gender distribution was 31 females (41.3%) and 44 males (58.7%), with a mean age of 64.4 years (range 2–90 years). Results: Therapeutic endoscopy was the most common cause of perforation (73 of 75 patients; 97.3%). Diagnostic endoscopy caused perforation in 2 patients (2.7%). The perforation was located in the cervical part of the esophagus in 7 patients (9.3%), the intrathoracic part in 25 patients (33.3%), and the abdominal part in 43 patients (57.3%). In this study population, 25 patients (33.3%) were treated surgically, and 50 patients (66.7%) conservatively. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 14 of 75 patients (18.7%). In the surgically treated group the rate was 6 of 25 patients (24%) and in the conservative group 8 of 50 patients (16%). Conclusions: The decision of a treatment strategy depends on different factors such as the location and extent of the injury, the time interval between perforation and treatment onset, the preexisting diseases, and the patient's general condition. In view of these factors, an individual therapy concept should be determined for every patient. Received: 20 October 1998/Accepted: 26 March 1999     

Management of esophageal gunshot wounds

The records of 20 patients with gunshot wounds of the esophagus seen from 1973 through 1985 were reviewed. Nine perforations were cervical, 10 were thoracic, and 1 was abdominal. Because physical findings and plain roentgenograms lack specificity, a high index of suspicion based on the path of the bullet tract is essential for early diagnosis. Esophageal injury should especially be suspected when the bullet wound is transcervical or transmediastinal. Perforation was diagnosed by esophagoscopy in 9 patients, esophagography in 4, and surgical exploration in 7. Mean time from admission to operation was 3.8 hours. Associated injuries occurred frequently. Eighteen patients were treated by primary closure and wide drainage, and 2 were managed by esophageal exclusion. There were 2 perioperative deaths, both in patients with associated aortic injuries, and 1 late death, for an overall mortality of 15%. There was one postoperative leak following a cervical repair. No leaks occurred in patients having a thoracic repair. The findings indicate that esophageal perforation must be sought by a variety of methods. With prompt diagnosis and early operation, primary repair can be safely accomplished. When sepsis from esophageal leak is avoided, mortality and major morbidity are related to associated injuries.