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.     

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.     

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.     

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: 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.     

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.     

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.     

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)     

Diagnosis and recommended management of esophageal perforation and rupture

Over the past 47 years (1937 to 1984), a total of 127 patients with esophageal perforation or rupture were evaluated at Duke Medical Center or the Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center. In 13 patients, the diagnosis was established at the time of autopsy and in the remaining 114, the diagnosis was established clinically. The etiology, radiological findings, underlying esophageal disease, time interval between onset of symptoms and therapy, and eventual outcome were evaluated. Patients with anastomotic leaks and those in whom carcinoma resulted in perforation or fistula were excluded. Iatrogenic causes were responsible for 55% of perforations, followed by spontaneous rupture in 15%, foreign body perforation in 14%, and traumatic perforation in 10%. Of the 127 patients, 114 underwent treatment involving primary closure (43%), drainage alone (28%), resection (9%), or nonoperative therapy (20%). The overall mortality among these 114 patients was 21%. Fourteen patients sustained a major complication requiring additional operative intervention. The overall mortality among patients requiring reoperation was 57%. Survival was significantly influenced by a delay in treatment of greater than 24 hours. With the exception of nonoperative therapy, survival was improved for all forms of treatment instituted within 24 hours. Primary closure within 24 hours resulted in the most favorable outcome (92% survival). In addition to early treatment, other factors associated with a favorable outcome included traumatic perforation (100% survival), foreign-body perforations (94% survival), and iatrogenic causes (80% survival). Spontaneous rupture resulted in the lowest survival (37%). The incidence of esophageal perforation has increased dramatically since 1967.(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.     

带蒂大网膜移植治疗食管自发性破裂11例

用带蒂大网膜作补片修补食管自发性破裂病人１例。发病至手术相隔１３小时至１８天，平均大于１００小时，均获成功。并从大网膜的生理、解剖及其临床应用诸方面对本术式的可行性进行了讨论。结论：本方法是治疗各期食管自发性破裂的一种疗效可靠、简单易行的术式。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Foreign body perforation of the normal oesophagus.

Over an 11-year period, 12 patients with foreign body perforation of a previously normal oesophagus were treated in our institution. The foreign bodies were most commonly bones (10 cases), 5 of which were chicken bones; other species were pigeon, rabbit, veal, pork and fish (one each); 2 perforations were due to swallowed dentures. The mean age was 60 years (range 42-73) and 6 patients were female. A degree of psychosocial dysfunction was present in 3 patients. Seven patients presented late (> 48 h after ingestion). The commonest presenting symptoms were fever and pain (8 patients). Other symptoms included dysphagia (7), respiratory distress (3), and late cervical abscess formation (3). The diagnosis was established by contrast oesophagography or rigid oesophagoscopy. A third of the perforations were cervical, the remainder intrathoracic. All patients were treated by surgical drainage with or without primary closure of the perforation. There were no operative deaths. Five patients developed postoperative oesophageal leaks which required reoperation in 1 patient. All patients were well and swallowing normally on discharge from hospital. Follow-up endoscopy or oesophagography was carried out in all patients and confirmed the absence of oesophageal disorders. Foreign body perforation of the oesophagus is a rare but important subentity of oesophageal perforation which responds well to surgical treatment.     

Treatment of oesophageal perforation: a multivariate analysis

Perforation of the oesophagus was retrospectively analysed in 59 patients. Cause and extent of perforation, localization, quality of the oesophageal wall and therapeutic modes were subjected to univariate analysis. The perforations of the intrathoracic oesophagus (39) were also subjected to multivariate analysis. Perforation of the cervical oesophagus is seldom lethal and can be adequately treated conservatively in the majority of cases. Perforations of the intrathoracic oesophagus can be divided into two groups, with or without simultaneous perforation of the parietal pleura. The optimal treatment for the group with pleural perforation seems to be resection of the oesophagus and secondary reconstruction, although primary closure is indicated in selected early cases. Perforations of the intrathoracic oesophagus confined to the mediastinum can be adequately treated conservatively in most patients. Perforation of the intra-abdominal oesophagus should be treated like any other intra-abdominal visceral perforation, by closure or diversion, even if this results in resection of the oesophagus.     

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.     

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).     

Perforation of the Intrathoracic Oesophagus

A series of 19 patients with perforation of the intrathoracic oesophagus is presented. Recent perforations were treated by primary suture. All these patients survived, although the suture did not hold in all cases. Old perforations, together with recent ones that leaked after suturing, were treated by drainage and gastrostomy. Two of these patients died; they were the only patients in whom the first attempt at drainage was unsatisfactory and thus had to be revised. The treatment of oesophageal perforations seems to be in accordance with the long-established principles of treatment of other gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary fistulas: firstly to restrict primary suturing to non-inflammatory tissue, and secondly to apply the principles of secondary healing by means of decompression and drainage.     

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.