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.     

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.     

Management of thoracic esophageal perforations

Objective: To assess our results of a prospective algorithm applied to patients with thoracic esophageal perforation. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospective algorithm. Patients with esophageal perforation underwent an esophagram. If there was a contained esophageal perforation they were admitted, kept nothing by mouth, and restudied in 3–5 days. If the leak was not contained, they underwent operative repair. Results: From 1/1998 to 6/2009 there were 81 patients. The gastrograffin swallow showed 56 patients had contained perforations and 25 did not. Twenty-two of the 25 patients with noncontained perforation underwent immediate operative repair (one patient refused surgery, two were not stable enough for the operating room); their morbidity was 68% and there were six (24%) operative mortalities. Median hospital length of stay (LOS) was 11 days (range, 2–120). Of the 56 patients with contained perforations, 26 were managed successfully without surgery. However, 30 of the patients initially treated nonoperatively eventually required operations due to new pleural effusion, mediastinal abscess, or conversion to noncontained perforation. Their morbidity was 41% and there were three operative mortalities (5%). On univariate analysis, these patients were more likely to have undergone previous esophageal procedures (surgical or dilation) (p = 0.03), had new or increased pleural effusion (p = 0.04), and had greater than 24 h between diagnosis and treatment (p = 0.02). Only greater than 24 h between diagnosis and treatment remained a significant predictor on multivariate analysis. Their median hospital LOS was 21 days (range, 7–77). Conclusion: Contained thoracic esophageal perforations can usually be safely managed nonoperatively without significant morbidity or mortality. However, careful in-hospital monitoring is needed if surgery is not chosen.     

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.     

颈椎前路内固定术后中远期食管并发症

 目的 探讨颈椎前路内固定术后中远期食管并发症的发生率及其诊疗策略。方法 对2001年1月至2011年12月2316例行颈椎前路内固定手术患者发生的中远期食管并发症情况进行回顾性分析。食管中远期并发症包括术后2周以上发生的食管穿孔、食管气管瘘、食管皮下瘘、食管憩室、食管胸膜瘘及食管狭窄等。结果 共4例患者发生中远期食管并发症,发生率为0.17%(４/２３1６),其中食管穿孔发生率为0.09%(2例)。病例1为31岁男性患者,自体髂骨移植融合加钢板内固定(C5)术后7年发现食管憩室合并食管穿孔。手术取出内固定,清创后切除憩室,胸骨舌骨肌及肩胛舌骨肌肌瓣修补食管。病例2为46岁男性患者,自体髂骨移植融合加钢板内固定(C5)术后3年发现食管憩室。手术取出内固定,切除食管憩室,胸骨舌骨肌及肩胛舌骨肌肌瓣修补食管。病例3为58岁女性患者,自体髂骨移植融合加钢板内固定(C6)术后5年出现食管憩室。手术取出内固定,切除食管憩室,胸锁乳突肌肌瓣修补食管。病例4为56岁女性患者,钛网植骨融合加钢板内固定(C6)术后3年出现食管穿孔。手术取出内固定,清创后胸锁乳突肌肌瓣修补食管。4例患者术后食管并发症均获得成功治疗,恢复良好。结论 颈椎前路内固定术后中远期食管并发症的发生率较低,X线片、消化道造影及消化道内镜检查是主要的诊断方法,手术是其主要的治疗手段。     

Minimally invasive approach to Boerhaave’s syndrome

Background: Boerhaave's syndrome requires urgent thoracotomy, laparotomy, or both for esophageal repair and pleuromediastinal debridement. Minimally invasive techniques may be suitable alternatives. Material and methods: Over a period of 12 months, three patients with spontaneous esophageal perforations after forceful vomiting were treated by a combination of minimally invasive techniques including laparoscopy, thoracoscopy, mediastinoscopy, and endoscopic stenting. Results: Esophageal repair was performed transhiatally via laparoscopy using primary suture, primary suture reinforced by a fundic patch, and fundic patch alone in one patient each. One patient had a second perforation of the proximal esophagus, which was sutured through a cervical incision. This patient successfully underwent secondary endoscopic stenting for a persistent esophageal fistula. Mediastinal debridement was performed transhiatally and also by means of a mediastinoscope introduced via the cervical incision in one patient. One patient required secondary thoracoscopic debridement of a pleural empyema but died of sepsis after 1 month. The two other patients recovered and were discharged from the hospital after 2 and 8 weeks, respectively. Conlusions: Boerhaave's syndrome is amenable to minimally invasive techniques. Avoidance of a formal thoracotomy with its resulting morbidity could be of considerable benefit to these critically ill patients.     

Use of temporary esophageal stent in management of perforations after benign esophageal surgery

Successful conservative management in 3 patients with catastrophic postoperative esophageal leak after nonresection surgery is presented. In each case, the placement of removable stent played a significant role. First patient had persistent leak after primary repair of intrathoracic esophageal perforation. The second patient underwent a transthoracic redo Collis-Nissen repair and was subsequently found to have a perforation in the midesophagus. The last patient had a history of recurrent hiatal hernia repair with mesh reinforcement of the hiatus. A perforation resulted from mesh eroding into the esophagus. All the patients had endoscopic placement of removable silicone-covered polyester stent under fluoroscopic guidance. Stent placement was successful in all patients allowing immediate resumption of diet. After stent removal, contrast study showed no leak or stricture. Endoscopic stent therapy is an effective option in the management of postoperative esophageal perforation.     

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.     

Management of Esophageal Perforation

Despite recent advances in thoracic surgery, the management of esophageal perforation remains problematical and controversial. Thirty-one patients were treated for an esophageal perforation between 1986 and 1998. The esophageal perforation was iatrogenic in 25 cases, spontaneous in 2, traumatic in 2, and caused by a tumor and tuberculous lymphadenitis in 2 patients. There were 10 cervical, 19 thoracic, and 2 abdominal perforations. The interval from perforation to operation was less than 24 h in 12 patients and more than 24 h in 19 patients. The surgical procedures included a primary repair in 12 patients, a resection in 8, and conservative treatment with minor surgical approaches in 11. The mortality rate was 20% (4/20 patients) in the surgical treatment group and 45.5% (5/11 patients) in the conservative treatment with minor surgery group. The overall mortality was 29% (9/31 patients). The prognosis is thus concluded to depend on the cause and location of the perforation, the presence of underlying esophageal diseases, and the surgical procedure chosen. Received: October 12, 1999 / Accepted: May 30, 2000     

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.     

颈椎前路手术并发食管瘘的原因及处理

 目的 探讨颈椎前路手术并发食管瘘的原因及处理对策。方法 回顾性分析2004年1月至2011年12月采用颈椎前路手术治疗2348例颈椎疾患患者资料,其中5例发生食管瘘,男3例,女2例;年龄14~48岁,平均34岁;颈椎外伤3例,颈椎病1例,颈椎结核1例。1例患者术中发现食管瘘,给予修补;另4例均为术后发现,行清创探查引流术,其中1例探查时发现食管瘘口遂给予修补,1例仅行清创探查术,1例清创探查术后二期行内固定取出术,1例清创探查术后二期行内固定取出及肌瓣填塞术。给予禁食、营养支持、伤口引流及抗生素治疗;定期吞服亚甲蓝,观察漏口情况。结果 经过9～61周治疗,所有患者食管瘘口愈合,恢复进食。随访6～48个月,无一例发生食管瘘复发、颈椎失稳及迟发感染;吞咽功能均良好;患者原有颈部疾患治疗效果均满意,颈椎外伤患者Frankel分级平均提高1级,颈椎病患者JOA评分由术前9分提高至术后15分。结论 采用食管瘘口修补、肌瓣填塞以及引流手术,并严格禁食禁水、营养支持,必要时取出内固定物,多数颈椎前路手术并发食管瘘的患者能获得满意的疗效。术中仔细轻柔操作是预防食管瘘发生的关键。     

Repairing esophageal perforations with a transverse cervical musculofascial flap

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Although rare, perforations of the esophagus following spinal surgery via an anterior approach are serious life-threatening problems. Complications include abscess formation, mediastinitis, sepsis, and fistula that can carry a mortality rate of 20%-50%. Early diagnosis and treatment are imperative. A common method of repair is isolation and primary repair of the defect in the esophagus, with interpositional muscle coverage. A transverse cervical myofascial artery flap is described here as a potential reconstructive option. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Retrospective review was performed on 3 patients who had repair of esophageal perforations following spinal surgery with an anterior approach. RESULTS: In all 3 cases, hardware was found to be eroding through the esophagus. The hardware was removed at the time of repair and flap coverage in 2 patients, and each went on to an oral diet within 10 days without complication, with follow-up exceeding 6 months. A third patient with recurrent erosions could not have the hardware removed and subsequently suffered with another erosion through the muscle flap. A secondary surgery with pectoralis flap coverage was successful but required revision surgeries for flap debulking. No patients had limitation of shoulder movement after flap reconstruction, and all went on to a normal diet without dysphagia. CONCLUSIONS: The transverse cervical artery musculofascial flap can be an ideal method for repair of small cervical esophageal perforations, although spinal hardware should be removed if felt to be the etiology of the perforation.     

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.     

食管穿孔和破裂的诊断与治疗

目的 提高对食管穿孔和破裂的诊断及处理水平。方法 回顾性分析经外科处理的45例食管穿孔或破裂患的临床资料。结果 本组患经胸部平片、胸腔穿刺、上消化道造影及胃镜确诊。15例为自发性食管破裂，6例为医源性穿孔，5例为创伤性穿孔，10例为食管癌并食管支气管瘘，9例为食管憩室并食管支气管瘘。治疗予以食管修补9例；胸腔引流、空肠造瘘9例(其中1例为食管修补失败后改行此手术)；食管切除胃食管吻合术12例(其中3例为食管修补失败)；胃造瘘术4例；置入食管支架4例；食管支气管瘘切除修补3例；食管瘘口修补并肺叶切除2例；食管胃弓上短路1例，颈部引流2例；放弃治疗3例。治愈25例，好转11例，死亡6例。结论 详细了解病史和进行胸腔穿刺、上消化道造影等检查可帮助诊断。尽早手术闭合瘘口和治疗食管原发病变是治疗的关键。     

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.     

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.     

Treatment of Early and Delayed Esophageal Perforation

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

Esophageal 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.     

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.     

Management of Gastric Perforations During Laparoscopic Gastric Banding

Background

Gastric perforations are one of the intraoperative complications of laparoscopic gastric banding (LAGB). Delayed diagnosis can increase the mortality and morbidity rates.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of surgery outcome and long-term follow-up of the patients with gastric perforations during primary LAGB and revisional band procedures was performed.

Results

Twenty-four patients with gastric perforations were identified during 15?years of LAGB surgeries. Half of these had primary LAGB and half had revisional procedures (five emergent and seven elective). Gastric tear was found at surgery in 19 patients; the band was preserved and LAGB was completed in 18 of these. Five patients had delayed diagnosis and underwent re-exploration 24?C72?h after surgery. During the surgery, 23 anterior, 8 posterior, 1 esophageal, and 1 small bowel tears were found. Laparoscopic repair was successful in 19 (83?%) cases. The mean surgery time and mean hospital stay were 56.3?min and 7.8?days, respectively. Morbidity and mortality rates were 25 and 4.1?%, respectively. Two patients underwent later band replacement following removal. Band erosion was observed in one patient. At least 17 patients had no complications during mean follow-up of 52.2?months.

Conclusions

Band preservation is recommended following primary repair of gastric tear. Early intra- and postoperative diagnosis of gastric tear in LAGB is essential for successful management of this iatrogenic injury and decreases occurrence of complications.