Fatal esophageal perforation caused by invasive candidiasis

Instrumental lesions, spontaneous rupture, and trauma cause most esophageal perforations. Transmural fungal infection is extremely rare, although Candida may be detected in as many as 25% of normal esophagus. In this report we present a case of fatal esophageal perforation due to transmural Candida infection in a 76-year-old woman. The patient died from septic shock and multiorgan failure, despite esophageal resection and systemic antifungal therapy. Pathogenetic aspects and treatment strategies are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Pharyngoesophageal perforation after blunt neck trauma

Pharyngoesophageal perforation secondary to blunt neck trauma is an uncommon injury that can cause serious morbidity and mortality if not recognized and treated. Pharyngeal perforation secondary to blunt trauma sustained while boxing is reported. Review of the world literature found 10 cases of pharyngoesophageal perforation secondary to blunt neck trauma. Analysis of these cases indicates that perforations less than 2 cm and limited to the pharynx may be treated medically with close observation. Large perforations and those perforations that extend to the esophageal inlet or involve the esophagus exclusively are best treated surgically.     

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.     

Conservative management of esophageal perforation after a fall

INTRODUCTIONEsophageal perforation in the setting of blunt trauma is rare, and diagnosis can be difficult due to atypical signs and symptoms accompanied by distracting injury.PRESENTATION OF CASEWe present a case of esophageal perforation resulting from a fall from height. Unexplained air in the soft tissues planes posterior to the esophagus as well as subcutaneous emphysema in the absence of a pneumothorax on CT aroused clinical suspicions of an injury to the aerodigestive tract. The patient suffered multiple injuries including bilateral first rib fractures, C6 lamina fractures, C4–C6 spinous process fractures, a C7 right transverse process fracture with associated ligamentous injury and cord contusion, multiple comminuted nasal bone fractures, and a right verterbral artery dissection. Esophageal injury was localized using a gastrograffin esophagram to the cervical esophagus and was most likely secondary to cervical spine fractures. Because there were no clinical signs of sepsis and the esophagram demonstrated a contained rupture, the patient was thought to be a good candidate for a trial of conservative management consisting of broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, oral care with chlorhexadine gluconate, NPO, and total parenteral nutrition. No cervical spine fixation or procedure was performed during this trial of conservative management. The patient was received another gastrograffin esophagram on hospital day 14 and demonstrated no evidence of contrast extravasation.DISCUSSIONEarly diagnosis and control of the infectious source are the cornerstones to successful management of esophageal perforation from all etiologies. Traditionally, esophageal perforation relied on a high index of clinical suspicion for early diagnosis, but the use of CT scan for has proved to be highly effective in diagnosing esophageal perforation especially in patients with atypical presentations. While aggressive surgical infection control is paramount in the majority of esophageal perforations, a select subset of patients can be successfully managed non-operatively.CONCLUSIONIn the setting of blunt trauma, esophageal perforation is rare and is associated with a high morbidity. In select patients who do not show any clinical signs of sepsis, contained perforations can heal with non-operative management consisting of broad spectrum antibiotics, strict oral hygiene, NPO, and total parenteral nutrition.     

Endoscopic management of inveterate esophageal perforations and leaks

The endoscopic management of four selected patients with inveterate esophageal perforations or leaks is presented. One patient had a perforation of the cervical esophagus following endoscopic removal of a foreign body already treated with surgical drainage; two patients had a leak following diverticulectomy and esophagogastrostomy, respectively, persistent after multiple surgical repairs; the last patient had a spontaneous perforation of the thoracic esophagus persistent after two transthoracic repairs. The mean time elapsed between the diagnosis of perforation and the endoscopic treatment was 19 days. In one patient, transesophageal drainage of a mediastinal abscess was performed. In the other three patients, a stent was placed to seal the leak in combination with gastric and esophageal aspiration. Two of these patients underwent endoscopy in critical condition and could have not been candidates for major surgical procedures. All patients received enteral nutrition. No morbidity or mortality related to the endoscopic procedure was recorded; the treatment was effective in all patients who recovered and resumed oral feeding within 3 weeks. We conclude that endoscopic transesophageal drainage and stenting are effective procedures in the management of patients with inveterate esophageal perforations or leaks.     

Esophageal perforation of aortic arch aneurysm treated free of mediastinitis without manipulating esophagus

Esophageal perforations of thoracic aortic aneurysms are most likely to be fatal. Patients with aorto-esophageal fistula require urgent operation on both the esophageal perforation site and the aortic lesion to avoid terminal exsanguination and uncontrollable mediastinitis. We present a case of 71-year-old woman suffering esophageal perforation of aortic arch aneurysm with sentinel arterial hemorrhage, who has not developed patent aortoesophageal fistula. Computed tomography verified rupture of aortic arch aneurysm that had eroded the esophagus. She underwent successful graft replacement and remains well without signs of mediastinitis over one year after the event. It is possible, in selected cases of esophageal perforation of thoracic aortic aneurysm, to manage the esophageal lesion without any surgical intervention, such as primary closure, omental coverage and surgical discontinuity to achieve esophageal healing free of infection.     

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.     

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.     

Nonoperative management of esophageal perforations. Is it justified?

OBJECTIVE: Experiences obtained with nonoperative treatment (NOT), i.e. total prohibition of per oral food intake for a minimum of 7 days, administration of combinations of broad-spectrum antibiotics, and parenteral hyperalimentation, are described in the management of esophageal perforations. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The place, value, and indication of NOT in the management of esophageal perforation has not yet been unequivocally defined. As a result, contradictory data have been published regarding the outcome of NOT. METHODS: During the past 15 years (1979 to 1994), 20 of 86 patients (23.3%) with esophageal perforation have been treated nonoperatively from the outset. In this group, perforations were located to the upper, middle, and lower third of the esophagus in 50%, 30%, and 20%, respectively. In the operative management group (OT)--in which conservative (drainage, endeprothesis), reconstructive (suture, reinforced suture), and radical (resection) surgical methods were applied--lesions were preponderantly located in the lower one third of the esophagus (56.1%--37/66). As to the interval between the perforation and the onset of treatment, 14 patients had been diagnosed within 24 hours, whereas in 6 cases treatment had been begun beyond 24 hours. RESULTS: NOT could be successfully carried out in 16 patients; the decision to use NOT had to be revised in 4 other cases (Table 1). Two patients were lost; the mortality rate was 10% (2 of 20). The rate of complications was lower in the NOT group (20%, or 4 of 20) than in the OT group (50%, or 33 of 66). CONCLUSIONS: NOT can be suggested for the treatment of intramural perforations. In the case of transmural perforation, this approach should be taken into consideration if the esophageal lesion is circumscribed, is not in neoplastic tissue, is not in the abdominal cavity, and is not accompanied by simultaneous obstructive esophageal disease; in addition, symptoms and signs of septicemia should be absent.     

Penetrating wounds of the cervical esophagus

To determine trends in management, twenty-two years' experience with penetrating wounds of the cervical esophagus in thirty-nine patients has been evaluated. There were three deaths, all as a result of delayed operative repair. Experience gained from the earlier years of this study led to a marked reduction in mortality in the later years as a result of an increased index of clinical suspicion, coupled with an aggressive operative approach with primary closure and adequate drainage. A nonoperative approach has been suggested by others for small esophageal perforations after endoscopy and perforation from foreign objects. For penetrating injuries of the esophagus, operation and definitive repair is mandatory.     

Treatment of esophageal perforations. Considerations on a clinical case

The Authors describe a rare case of esophageal perforation occurred after Transoesophageal echocardiography in 68 years old patient and review the literature relating to the causes and management of this pathology. Transoesophageal echocardiography, which is a semi-invasive investigation increasingly used in cardiology and cardiac surgery and intensive care units, is a rare though extremely dangerous cause of such complications. Perforation of the esophagus continues to present a formidable diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The diagnosis depends on a high degree of suspicion and on the recognition of clinical features and is confirmed by contrast esophagography. The outcome after esophageal perforation depends on the location of the injury, the presence or otherwise of concomitant esophageal disease and the time elapsing between the injury and inititian of treatment. Reinforced primary repair of the perforation is the procedure most frequently employed and preferred for the surgical management of the esophageal perforation. In the case reported here, early diagnosis and prompt surgical treatment consisting in primary repair of the esophageal perforation contributed to the successful management of this serious pathology.     

Plastic tube prosthesis for the surgical treatment of perforations in esophageal strictures

A method of plastic tube intubation is described for the treatment of perforation of strictures in the lower esophagus. The tube occludes the esophageal tear and keeps the lower esophagus and cardia open, allowing spontaneous healing of the tear. Of the 5 patients treated by this method, 4 had perforations of a fibrotic esophagus and 1 had perforation of a carcinoma of the lower third of the esophagus. All patients survived. In patients without malignancies, the tube can be removed from the esophagus after a few weeks provided there is no danger of rapid stricture formation in the lower esophagus.     

Pediatric esophageal perforation.

Although esophageal perforation in children is associated with a spectrum of disease different from the one in adults, management is essentially the same for both groups. Over the past 11 years, 12 patients ranging in age from 2 days to 10 years were treated for 13 perforations. Perforation in the adult is associated with a high mortality rate. All children in this series survived. Injury was secondary to instrumentation in 10 cases and three resulted from the chronic erosion of a trapped foreign body. Of the 10 acute perforations, five occurred 12 days to 5 months after lye ingestion. Anastomotic narrowing was a factor in three other cases. Seven of the acute perforations involved the thoracic esophagus and were associated with a high morbidity rate. Management consisted of operative as well as nonoperative approaches. Consideration must be given to several clinical variables including location, cause, predisposing factors, underlying illnesses, associated injury, and promptness of medical attention.     

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.     

Traumatic perforations of the esophagus

Over the past 15 years nine patients with traumatic mechanical perforations of the esophagus have been treated. Seven perforations were iatrogenic, two were accidental. One patient treated conservatively did well. Two patients were operated on without delay. Their hospitalization was short and they had no complications. Six patients were referred to surgery after a delay ranging from 5 days to 17 days from the time of perforation. Their hospitalization ranged from 9 to 113 days, averaging 62.7 days. Complications were common and two patients died. In order to assure survival of patients with esophageal perforation, early aggressive treatment is essential in nearly all instances. In an occasional patient with a small and clean perforation at the esophageal inlet, conservative treatment may be justified.     

Transesophageal irrigation for the treatment of mediastinitis produced by esophageal rupture

Esophageal rupture in the thorax, unless small and contained, is followed by the early onset of fulminant mediastinitis. When the rupture occurs in the cervical esophagus, mediastinitis will also occur if cervical drainage is delayed and the infection is allowed to spread along the periesophageal planes towards the mediastinum. The purpose of this article is to report the good results obtained in the treatment of life-threatening sepsis from esophageal rupture with the combination of continuous per oral transesophageal irrigation of the mediastinum and drainage of the irrigating fluid by accurately positioned chest tubes connected to a wall-suctioning system. When the patient cannot swallow, mediastinal irrigation is accomplished via a nasogastric tube positioned by the upper esophagus proximal to the perforation. Irrigation by mouth was also used for the treatment of cervical perforations with the drainage tubes positioned in the neck. With this method in eight patients, sepsis has invariably been controlled, and in six cases, in which no irreversible damage to the esophagus existed, the perforations have healed spontaneously. There was no death resulting from mediastinitis, which is most often the lethal factor in esophageal rupture.     

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 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.