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.     

Esophagectomy for a traumatic esophageal perforation with delayed diagnosis

Esophageal perforations are rare, and traumatic perforations are even more infrequent. Due to the rarity of this condition and its nonspecific presentation, the diagnosis and treatment of this type of perforation are delayed in more than 50% of patients, which leads to a high mortality rate. An 18-year-old male patient was brought to the emergency room with a penetrating neck injury, caused by a gunshot wound. He was taken to the operating room and underwent surgical exploration of the neck and a chest tube was inserted to treat the hemo- and pneumothorax. During the procedure, a 2 cm lesion was detected in the esophagus, and the patient underwent a primary repair. A contrast leakage into his right hemithorax was noticed on the 4th postoperative day; he was submitted to new surgery, and a subtotal esophagectomy and jejunostomy were performed. He was discharged from the hospital in good condition 20 d after the last procedure. The discussion around this topic focuses on the importance of the timing of diagnosis and the subsequent treatment. In early diagnosed patients, more conservative therapeutics should be performed, such as primary repair, while in those with delayed diagnosis, the patient should be submitted to more aggressive and definitive treatment.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Use of self-expandable metal stents for the treatment of esophageal perforations and anastomotic leaks

Background  Esophageal perforations and extensive anastomotic leaks after esophageal resection or gastrectomy are surgical emergencies with high mortality rates. In recent years, the use of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) has emerged as a promising treatment alternative for bridging and sealing the damage. This study aimed to evaluate the role of covered SEMS for the management of esophageal perforations and anastomotic leaks. Methods  All esophageal stent placement procedures (174 procedures for 157 patients) at the authors’ unit between January 1999 and April 2008 were assessed by a retrospective chart review. Of the 157 patients, 10 (6.4%) were treated with SEMS for sealing of an iatrogenic esophageal perforation (n = 4), a spontaneous esophageal rupture in Boerhaave’s syndrome (n = 4), or an anastomotic leakage (n = 2). Results  The median time from perforation or anastomotic leak to stent insertion was 13 days (range, 2 h to 48 days). The esophageal leak was totally sealed for 8 (80%) of 10 patients. The overall mortality rate was 50% (n = 5), and three (30%) of the five deaths were related to the perforation (n = 2) or leakage (n = 1). In both of the perforation cases, the diagnosis and treatment were substantially delayed. One patient with an anastomotic leak after gastrectomy died of the complication despite successful operative and SEMS treatment. Two of the deaths were unrelated to the perforation. In both cases, the cause of death was a disseminated malignant disease. Conclusions  Traumatic perforations and anastomotic leaks can be treated effectively with covered SEMS together with adequate drainage of the thoracic cavity even in cases of severely ill patients with inveterate esophageal perforations and leaks.     

Diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal perforations in childhood dermatomyositis with particular reference to perforations of the duodenum

Four children with dermatomyositis were recently seen with gastrointestinal perforations. The sites of perforation in the four cases were: (1) the duodenum, esophagus, and colon; (2) the duodenum; (3) the distal stomach; and (4) the traverse colon. The gastric and transverse colon perforations were intraperitoneal and easily diagnosed. The gastric perforation was treated successfully by partial gastrectomy. The patient with the colon perforation underwent exteriorization; death occurred from cerebral complications possibly related to vasculitis. Both duodenal perforations were posterior in the distal descending portion. Enzymatic dissection into the right lower quadrant produced confusing clinical and radiographic signs and extensive retroperitoneal necrosis. Successful treatment was obtained by partial gastrectomy, sump drainage of the perforation, and parenteral nutrition. Gastrointestinal perforation is a well-recognized complication of vasculitis in childhood dermatomyositis. In particular, perforations of the distal duodenum, as reported by others, are associated with delay in diagnosis and high mortality.     

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.     

Instrumental perforation of the esophagus in benign disease

Over a period of seven years, a total of 1,831 endoscopic procedures were performed in patients with benign esophageal disease. These comprised flexible esophagoscopy (848), flexible esophagoscopy and dilation (924), pneumatic dilation (29), and rigid esophagoscopy (30). There were 14 episodes of perforation: 1 was cervical, 2 were abdominal, and 11 were perforations of the intrathoracic esophagus (7 occurred at or immediately above a stricture). The diagnosis was made immediately in 9 and within six hours in all but 1 patient. Treatment was emergency surgery in 12 patients, 2 of whom died. The major cause of death was respiratory failure. The overall incidence of perforation was 0.76%. The incidence of perforation was 0.35% (3/848) for flexible esophagoscopy alone, 0.38% (3/792) for dilation with Maloney mercury-weighted bougies, and 3.8% (5/132) for dilation with other bougies. Our experience indicates that instrumental perforation in benign esophageal disease carries a considerable mortality rate in spite of prompt recognition and surgical treatment. Successful dilation with mercury-weighted bougies can be achieved in 86% of benign strictures with an incidence of perforation similar to that for flexible esophagoscopy alone. Difficult strictures and the use of other bougies are associated with a tenfold higher incidence of perforation.     

Management of esophageal perforation secondary to caustic esophageal injury in children

Purpose To review our management of esophageal perforation in children with caustic esophageal injury. Method We reviewed the medical records of 22 children treated for esophageal perforations that occurred secondary to caustic esophageal injury. Results There were 18 boys and 4 girls (mean age, 5 years; range, 2–12 years). Three children were treated for perforation during diagnostic endoscopy and 19 were treated for a collective 21 episodes of perforation during balloon dilatation. One child died after undergoing emergency surgery for tracheoesophageal fistula and pneumoperitoneum. Another patient underwent esophagostomy and gastrostomy. Twenty patients were treated conservatively with a nasogastric tube, broad spectrum antibiotics, and tube thoracostomy, 16 of whom responded but 4 required esophagostomy and gastrostomy. Although the perforation healed in 21 patients, 20 were left with a stricture. Two children were lost to follow-up, 8 underwent colonic interposition, and 10 continued to receive periodic balloon dilatations. Two of these 10 patients underwent colonic interposition after a second perforation. The other 8 became resistant to dilatations: 4 were treated by colon interposition; 2, by resection and anastomosis; and 2, by an esophageal stent. Conclusions Esophageal perforation can be managed conservatively. Because strictures tend to become resistant to balloon dilatation, resection and anastomosis is preferred if they are up to 1 cm in length, otherwise colonic interposition is indicated.     

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.     

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

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