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).     

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.     

Treatment of iatrogenic esophageal perforation

Between the years 1985 and 1989 11 patients with iatrogenic esophageal perforation were treated at the Department of Surgery at the University of Würzburg. 5 perforations were diagnosed within 24 hours, the others after 1 to 5 days. All patients received a non resective surgical treatment, consisting of excision of the perforated area, primary closure in single suture technique strictly extramucosal and drainage. In addition fibrin glue and a pleural wrap protected the suture. In 55% the postoperative course was completely inconspicuous. Only one patient with a recidive of a gastric cancer with lung and liver metastases, died 11 days after operation of a cervical perforation.     

The management of nonmalignant intrathoracic esophageal perforations

Eight patients with nonmalignant intrathoracic esophageal perforations recognized more than 48 hours (48 hours to 14 days) after rupture were treated at Toronto General Hospital between 1973 and 1978. Perforation was due to postemetic rupture in 7 patients and to instrumentation in 1. The patients were seen with pain (8), vomiting (7), fever (7), shock (4), respiratory insufficiency (5), pleural effusion (7), pulmonary infiltrates (7), and leukocytosis (6). All patients were managed with thoracotomy. Direct suture closure of the perforation was carried out in 4 patients with midesophageal perforations. Postoperative localized leaks developed in 2 of these patients but healed with conservative management. Cervical esophagostomy and esophageal diversion were used in 1 patient in whom a severe empyema developed in the postoperative period. Direct suture closure, reinforced with a gastric patch, was used to close three lower esophageal perforations. None of these patients had a postoperative leak but all developed subsequent reflux esophagitis. All 8 patients survived. In patients with delayed recognition of a nonmalignant intrathoracic esophageal perforation, elimination of continued chemical and bacterial contamination can be achieved by a clear definition and closure of the esophageal mucosal margins. The obliteration of potential pleural spaces by good tube drainage, lung decortication, and the elective use of mechanical ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure decreases the incidence of uncontrolled intrapleural sepsis.     

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.     

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.     

Perforation and rupture of the oesophagus: treatment and prognosis

AIM OF THE STUDY: To analyze treatment and prognosis of perforations and ruptures of the oesophagus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 40 patients (26 men and 14 women; mean age = 59 +/- 17 years) with a perforation or a rupture of the oesophagus. Seven perforations were cervical: iatrogenic (n = 6) or following ingestion of a foreign body (n = 1). Thirty-three perforations were thoracic: iatrogenic (n = 15), spontaneous rupture (n = 14), following ingestion of foreign body (n = 3) or traumatic (n = 1). All patients with cervical perforations were operated on (suture or drainage). One patient with thoracic perforation died before surgery, 2 underwent non-operative treatment and 30 were operated on. Twenty-eight underwent an oesophageal procedure: suture (n = 13), oesophagectomy (n = 11) or double exclusion (n = 4). Two uderwent surgery without oesophageal procedure (one pleural decortication, and one ablation of a pleural foreign body). RESULTS: The overall mortality rate was 17% (7/40), 21% (3/14) after spontaneous ruptures and 19% (4/21) after iatrogenic perforations (no death for other aetiologies). The mortality rate was 14% (1/7) for cervical lesions and 18% (6/33) for thoracic ones. It was 8% (1/13) after intrathoracic suture, 18% (2/11) after oesophagectomy and 50% (2/4) after double exclusion. CONCLUSION: Iatrogenic perforation and spontaneous rupture had the same poor prognosis. Non-surgical treatment is rarely indicated. oesophagectomy is a good option in case of non suturable oesophagus or delayed operation.     

Options in the management of perforations of the esophagus

A study of 90 cases of esophageal perforation in the antibiotic era emphasizes individualized treatment and options of therapy based on a fundamental understanding of modifying pathophysiologic factors. If the patient is seen during the first 24 hours, surgical repair and irrigating tube drainage continue to be the treatment of choice in the thoracic and abdominal regions, with certain exceptions. The exceptions include small perforations proved by a thin media esophagram or esophagoscopy without pleural involvement or constitutional symptoms. Such patients may be treated nonoperatively, with gastric drainage, antibiotics, and parenteral alimentation. However, for large perforations with extensive contamination of the mediastinum and pleura, an esophageal exclusion operation may be life saving. In the cervical region, irrigating tube drainage may be just as effectual as repair and drainage. In patients seen after 24 hours, size of the perforation and the amount of mediastinopleural infection, rather than the time that has elapsed, dictate optimal treatment.     

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.     

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.     

Perforation and rupture of the esophagus. Apropos of 35 cases

A series of 35 oesophageal perforations from the period 1980-1987 is reported. Sixteen perforations followed oesophageal endoscopy, 10 were spontaneous, 8 were due to foreign bodies and one was post-operative. The delay in reaching the right diagnosis was less than 24 hours in 18 cases and more than 24 hours in 17 cases. Oesophageal leak was demonstrated in 86% of our cases by contrast study; in the others by rigid oesophagoscopy. Perforation occurred in the cervical oesophagus in 6 patients, thoracic oesophagus in 28 and abdominal oesophagus in 2 (one had a double perforation). Three patients were managed non operatively and survived. Cervical oesophagostomy and oesophageal diversion were used in 4 patients as primary treatment because of perforation occurring in caustic burn cases (2 cases, both survived) or late severe sepsis (2 cases, both died). Two patients with neoplastic stricture were treated by oesophago-jejunal bypass without resection and partial oesophago-gastrectomy respectively: both survived. Direct suture and closure of the perforation were performed in 26 patients. Two died, one because of oesophageal leak. Post-operative localized leaks developed in 5 other patients without any mortality and 4 healed with conservative management. The overall mortality rate was 11% (4 patients). All had a delayed diagnosis (more than 48 hours). We suggest that even in patients with delayed diagnosis of a non-malignant oesophageal perforation, direct suture and closure should be attempted under protection of functional oesophageal diversion and "contact drainage" to canalize a possible post-operative localized leak. Good oesophageal diversion can be achieved by naso-oesophageal suction and gastric suction through gastrostomy or with oesogastric antireflux procedure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

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.     

Esophageal Gunshot Injuries

During a 15-year period from August 1964 to August 1979, 48 patients with gunshot wound of the esophagus (24 of the cervical, 17 of the thoracic, and seven of the abdominal) were treated at Grady Memorial Hospital. In the majority of the patients, the initial history, physical findings, and chest roentgenograms were nondiagnostic for esophageal injury. Esophageal perforation was mainly suspected because the bullet tract was in close proximity to the esophagus or the bullet had traversed the mediastinum. The diagnosis of esophageal perforation was made by esophagography (29 patients), at the time of emergency surgical exploration for suspected other organ injuries (17 patients), or by esophagoscopy (one patient). All but one patient were treated surgically. The surgical procedure most commonly used was primary repair of the esophageal wound with wide drainage of the mediastinum. Thirty-eight (79.2%) of the 48 patients survived, 21 (87.5%) of the 24 patients with cervical, 11 (64.7%) of the 17 patients with thoracic, and six (85.7%) of the seven patients with abdominal esophageal wounds. Ten patients died, three with cervical wound, six with thoracic wound, and one with abdominal esophageal wound. Three patients died intraoperatively from major bleeding and the remaining seven died from the esophageal and/or other associated injuries, four to eight days after surgery. None of the seven patients who underwent primary repair with wide drainage and plication of the suture line with pleural flap or other tissue, died or developed leak at the suture line. This study suggests that the physical and roentgenographic findings in patients with esophageal injury are often nondiagnostic and frequently are masked by coincidental injury to other organs. Hence, a high index of suspicion is required for the diagnosis of esophageal injury from gunshot wounds and esophagography should be performed as soon as the patient's condition is stable in all patients who present with a missile wound in close proximity to the esophagus or traversing the mediastinum. All patients with perforation of the esophagus from bullet wounds should be operated upon as soon as possible after the diagnosis is made. Wide drainage of the mediastinum and primary repair of the esophageal wound and plication of the suture line with parietal pleura or gastric fundus provide the best possible results.     

Surgical management of esophageal perforation

The recognition and management of esophageal perforation remain a problem. Diagnostic and treatment delays are common, and controversy continues regarding approaches to surgical intervention. Overall survival has increased with improved adjunctive modalities; however, morbidity and mortality remain high. A total of 115 consecutive cases of nonmalignant esophageal perforation were reviewed. There were 69 thoracic, 27 cervical, and 19 abdominal perforations. Etiology of the perforations was iatrogenic in 65 patients, traumatic in 28, and spontaneous perforation in 22. Symptoms included pain (71%), fever (51%), dyspnea (24%), and crepitus (22%). Contrast roentgenography was used in 78 patients and demonstrated the perforation in all but two patients. All but 20 patients had operations. In the last decade, the survival rate was 11.4 per cent for patients treated within 24 hours of perforation. Survival significantly improved in the last 10 years because of hyperalimentation, cardiopulmonary monitoring, and better antibiotic coverage. Treatment of choice is primary closure with drainage, regardless of the duration of the perforation. In selected patients who have cervical esophageal perforation, nonoperative management has a role.     

Boerhaave syndrome. A case report and review of the literature

Spontaneous esophageal perforation (Boerhaave's syndrome) remains a difficult diagnostic and management problem with controversial recommendations regarding its treatment. The clinical manifestations of the disease are variable, and may be misleading, thus delaying accurate recognition. On the other hand, in view of the rapid onset of severe complications, particularly mediastinitis, a prompt diagnosis is essential to a better prognosis, successful operative outcome and potential survival. A case of spontaneous perforation of the thoracic esophagus penetrating the left pleural space treated within 4 hours from admission to the Emergency Room, with minimal surgical intervention is presented. Despite negative chest X-ray, a thoracic TC showed a small right sided effusion with left sided hydropneumothorax, and the definitive diagnosis was obtained by contrast study with a water soluble medium which showed the leak communicating freely with the left pleural space. The patient underwent repair by thoracic approach, the rupture was closed with a primary suture without flap reinforcement and the pleural space drained with the placement of single chest thoracostomy tube. The recovery was uneventful. The analysis of this case report and of the appropriate literature reveals that a poor prognosis is correlated with the time elapsed between the perforation and treatment. In conclusion the importance of an early aggressive surgical treatment for the Boerhaave's syndrome is emphasized, because any perforation treated more than 24 hours after the onset of symptoms, irrespective of the procedure used, is associated with a significantly higher morbility and mortality.     

Surgical management of esophageal perforation: role of esophageal conservation in delayed perforation

Definitive repair of esophageal perforation is considered the preferred treatment for patients presenting early (<24 hours). However, the optimal management of delayed presentation (>24 hours) has not been well defined. This study examined the management of esophageal perforation and compared the outcomes of early versus delayed presentation. Records of patients admitted with the diagnosis of esophageal perforation were reviewed. Contrast studies were used to confirm the diagnosis in all cases. Patient demographics and outcome were analyzed to determine differences between early and delayed presentation. A total of 22 cases of esophageal perforation were identified (eight early vs 14 delayed presentations). Operative interventions included primary repair (four), reinforced repair (14) either with intercostal muscle or pleural flap, and a complete esophageal resection (one). Debridement and drainage without repair were done in two patients and a proximal intramural tear was treated with antibiotics and observation. Two patients died during hospitalization. All surviving patients had near-normal restoration of esophageal function. Follow-up at 3 years has shown minimal gastrointestinal problems. One patient required repeat esophageal dilatations and two patients underwent antireflux therapy. Esophageal repair should be considered in all cases of nonmalignant esophageal perforation and should not be influenced by the time of presentation.     

Spontaneous and instrumental perforations of the thoracic esophagus (non-neoplastic, non-caustic). Apropos of 20 cases]

The authors present twenty cases of spontaneous or instrumental perforation of the thoracic esophagus (neoplastic and caustic perforations excluded). The delay before treatment was less than 24 hours in only one case. Mortality rate was 15%, concerning three patients (three cases of Boerhaave's syndrome) treated by T tube drainage. The contribution of exclusion using stapling technique should increase the indications of direct suture, which remains elective treatment. Esophagectomy retains its indications for perforations with pathologic esophagus or late diagnosis.     

Aggressive conservative treatment remains the best option for oesophageal perforation in children

Oesophageal perforation (OP) requires prompt and vigorous treatment. In contrast with adult patients in whom surgical closure of perforation is preferred, non-operative treatment has been the usual approach in children. The present report aims at assessing whether this strategy stands the passage of time. We studied retrospectively the charts of patients treated at our institution for OP between 1991 and 2001. Between these years, we treated 19 episodes of OP in 17 patients aged 5.3 +/- 0,94 years. In 9 cases (4 lye burns, 3 oesophageal atresias, 1 bullous epidermolysis and 1 mucocutaneous candidiasis) OP occurred during dilatation of strictures. Foreign body extraction was the cause in 3 cases, and blunt trauma and sclerosis of varices were the causes in 2 cases each. The last child had multiple gastrointestinal perforation during treatment for leukaemia. Subcutaneous emphysema was seen in 7 instances, pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax in 14, pleural effusion in 9, dyspnoea in 9, severe thoracic pain in 1 and pericardial effusion in 1. The diagnosis was intraoperative in only 2 children but the symptoms and imaging signs prompted vigorous treatment within the first 24 hours in 15 instances. One or more pleural tubes were inserted in 11 cases and pericardial drainage was required once. Perforations closed without direct surgery in 18/19 episodes (16/17 children). Five gastrotomies and 2 jejunostomies were performed and several major abdominal operations were necessary to repair concurrent lesions in a child who sustained severe blunt abdominal trauma and in the one with leukaemic perforations. All these patients survive and all recovered oesophageal function although 2 with intractable lye structures ultimately required oesophageal replacement 6 and 10 months after OP. The only patient in whom direct approach for esophageal necrosis after variceal endosclerosis was unavoidable lost her organ and had a replacement after a successful porto-systemic shunt. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt and aggressive non-operative approach of oesophageal perforations in children allows survival and conservation of the organ and its function in most cases and should remain the first therapeutic choice at this age.     

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.