Reinforced primary repair of thoracic esophageal perforation

1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron D. Wright ◽  
Douglas J. Mathisen ◽  
John C. Wain ◽  
Ashby C. Moncure ◽  
Alan D. Hilgenberg ◽  
...  
1996 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nan Wang ◽  
Anees J. Razzouk ◽  
Ali Safavi ◽  
Karen Gan ◽  
Glen S. Van Arsdell ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 192-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vu Huu Vinh ◽  
Nguyen Viet Dang Quang ◽  
Nguyen Van Khoi

Objective Esophageal perforation is a life-threatening condition associated with high mortality and morbidity. Ambiguous clinical presentation is one of the most common causes of delayed and difficult diagnosis of esophageal perforation. In this retrospective single-center study, we reviewed the outcome of primary closure in patients with esophageal perforation between 2009 and 2017. Methods The data of 65 patients attending our department of thoracic surgery (from 2009 to 2017) for esophageal perforation were reviewed. Primary repair was attempted in 63 patients irrespective of the site of perforation and time interval between injury and hospital admission. In intrathoracic lesions, continuous mediastinal and pleural irrigation was undertaken, whereas in cervical perforations, gauze packing and local irrigation were performed. Jejunotomy was carried out in patients with inadequate healing. Results Of the 65 patients, 63 underwent primary closure and 2 were left to heal spontaneously. The majority of patients ( n = 44) had an esophageal perforation at the thoracic level, and only one was admitted early (<24 h after injury). Among the 63 patients managed with primary closure, 55 had satisfactory healing with one surgery. Healing was delayed in the other 10 patients. No mortality was reported. Conclusions Esophageal perforation can be well managed by primary closure, irrespective of the time interval between injury and hospital admission and the site of perforation. Conservative management might lead to an increased rate of complications such as empyema or necrotizing mediastinitis, and increased morbidity and mortality.


2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (8) ◽  
pp. 911-917 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lloyd M. Felmly ◽  
Hyejin Kwon ◽  
Chadrick E. Denlinger ◽  
Jacob A. Klapper

Esophageal perforation is a complex clinical entity that has multiple etiologies and variability in presentation, making it challenging to diagnose and treat. The mortality of esophageal perforation has improved because therapies have evolved. Whereas primary repair is the standard of care, multiple treatments may be employed successfully. We retrospectively reviewed all cases of suspected or confirmed esophageal perforation that were admitted to the thoracic surgery service at our institution between January 2011 and June 2016. We reviewed the charts of 61 patients. Twenty-three underwent primary repair, 13 underwent stent placement, 12 underwent drainage, 12 underwent medical management, and one underwent exclusion and diversion. All patients were included in the final analysis except the singular patient who underwent diversion. Overall mortality was 4.9 per cent. None of the studied variables were found to be associated with mortality (P > 0.05). Factors associated with choice of treatment were age (P < 0.0005), Charlson Index (P = 0.032), etiology (P < 0.0005), and location (P = 0.005). The application of different management options is based on a thorough understanding time course, patient anatomy, severity of presentation, and underlying disease process.


2010 ◽  
Vol 76 (12) ◽  
pp. 1355-1362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Kiernan ◽  
Sandeep J. Khandhar ◽  
Daniel L.C. Fortes ◽  
Michael J. Sheridan ◽  
Vivian Hetrick

The authors review their experience with thoracic esophageal perforation at Inova Fairfax Hospital, June 1, 1988, to March 1, 2009. With the exception of 6 patients with occult perforation, all of whom survived with nonoperative therapy, aggressive surgical intervention was the standard approach. Among patients treated aggressively with surgery within 24 hours of perforation, hospital survival was 97 per cent versus 89 per cent for patients treated aggressively surgically after 24 hours. In the absence of phlegmon, implacable obstruction, or delay, primary repair resulted in 100 per cent survival. Where phlegmon or resolute obstruction existed, resection and reconstruction resulted in 96 per cent survival. Even when patients were deemed too ill to undergo surgery, cervical diversion was 100 per cent effective in eradicating continuing leak and achieved 89 per cent survival. Endoesophageal stenting was applied as primary treatment or secondarily such as where leak complicated primary repair. When stenting was used as the initial and primary treatment modality, survival was 88 per cent. Targeted drainage was helpful on occasion as an adjunct to initial therapies. Comfort measures alone were appropriate when clinical circumstances merited no effort at resuscitation. Finally, survivors were asked to self-categorize their ability to swallow; 95 per cent responded good to excellent.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong Duk Kim

Abstract Background Esophageal perforation and rupture (EPR) is a serious, potentially life-threatening condition. However, no treatment methods have been established, and data concerning factors affecting mortality are limited. This report presents the prognostic factors of mortality in EPR based on experience in the management of such patients. Methods For this retrospective analysis, 79 patients diagnosed as having EPR between 2006 and 2016 and managed at Gyeongsang National University Hospital were examined. The management method was determined in accordance with the location and size of the EPR, laboratory findings, and radiological findings. Thirty-nine patients were treated with surgery; and 40, with nonsurgical management. Results The most common cause of EPR was foreign body (fish bone or meat bone), followed by vomiting, iatrogenic causes, and trauma. Thirty-nine patients underwent primary repair of EPR, of whom 4 patients died. Forty patients underwent nonsurgical management, of whom 3 patients died. The remaining patients were discharged. Mortality correlated with the size of the EPR (> 25 mm) and the segmented neutrophil count percentage (> 86.5%) in the white blood cell test and differential. Conclusions The mortality risk was increased when the EPR size and the segmented neutrophil count percentage in the white blood cell test and differential was high. Delayed diagnosis, which was considered an important predictive factor in previous investigations, was not statistically significant in this study. Trial registration: Not applicable.


Cureus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Luiz R Dantas ◽  
François Dantas ◽  
Plínio D Mendes ◽  
Bruno L Sandes ◽  
Gilberto Fonseca Filho

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document