Navigating the Complexities of Radiation Injuries: Therapeutic Principles and Reconstructive Strategies

Radiation injuries, particularly those resulting from therapeutic or accidental exposure, present complex challenges for medical management. These injuries can manifest localized skin damage or extend to deeper tissues, presenting as various clinical entities that require treatment strategies, ranging from conservative management to complex surgical interventions. Radiation treatment constitutes a fundamental component of neoplastic management, with nearly two out of three oncological instances undergoing it as an element of their therapeutic strategy. The therapeutic approach to radiation injury consists of expanding prophylactic measures while maintaining the efficacy of treatment, such as conservative treatment or local debridement followed by reconstruction. The armamentarium of reconstructive methods available for plastic surgeons, from secondary healing to free tissue transfer, can be successfully applied to radiation injuries. However, the unique pathophysiological changes induced by radiation necessitate a careful and specialized approach for their application, considering the altered tissue characteristics and healing dynamics. The therapeutic strategy is guided by both the severity and progression of the injury, with the primary aim of restoring functionality and aesthetic aspects while simultaneously minimizing the risk of complications. This paper explores the various conditions encompassed by the term "radiation injury," reviews both non-surgical and surgical therapeutic strategies for managing these injuries, and highlights the unique challenges associated with treating irradiated tissues within specific oncological contexts.

Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study of Oesophageal Injuries and Related Clinical Outcomes (MUSOIC study)

OBJECTIVE

To identify prognostic factors associated with 90-day mortality in patients with oesophageal perforation (OP), and characterize the specific timeline from presentation to intervention, and its relation to mortality.

BACKGROUND

OP is a rare gastro-intestinal surgical emergency with a high mortality rate. However, there is no updated evidence on its outcomes in the context of centralized esophago-gastric services; updated consensus guidelines; and novel non-surgical treatment strategies.

METHODS

A multi-center, prospective cohort study involving eight high-volume esophago-gastric centers (January 2016 to December 2020) was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was 90-day mortality. Secondary measures included length of hospital and ICU stay, and complications requiring re-intervention or re-admission. Mortality model training was performed using random forest, support-vector machines, and logistic regression with and without elastic net regularisation. Chronological analysis was performed by examining each patient's journey timepoint with reference to symptom onset.

RESULTS

The mortality rate for 369 patients included was 18.9%. Patients treated conservatively, endoscopically, surgically, or combined approaches had mortality rates of 24.1%, 23.7%, 8.7%, and 18.2%, respectively. The predictive variables for mortality were Charlson comorbidity index, haemoglobin count, leucocyte count, creatinine levels, cause of perforation, presence of cancer, hospital transfer, CT findings, whether a contrast swallow was performed, and intervention type. Stepwise interval model showed that time to diagnosis was the most significant contributor to mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-surgical strategies have better outcomes and may be preferred in selected cohorts to manage perforations. Outcomes can be significantly improved through better risk-stratification based on afore-mentioned modifiable risk factors.

Outcomes Associated With Esophageal Perforation Management: Results From a French Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes associated with esophageal perforation (EP) management at a national level and determine predictive factors of 90-day mortality (90dM), failure-to-rescue (FTR), and major morbidity (MM, Clavien-Dindo 3-4).

BACKGROUND

EP remains a challenging clinical emergency. Previous population-based studies showed rates of 90dM up to 38.8% but were outdated or small-sized.

METHODS

Data from patients admitted to hospitals with EP were extracted from the French medico-administrative database (2012-2021). Etiology, management strategies, and short and long-term outcomes were analyzed. A cutoff value of the annual EP management caseload affecting FTR was determined using the "Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector" method. Random effects logistic regression model was performed to assess independent predictors of 90dM, FTR, and MM.

RESULTS

Among 4765 patients with EP, 90dM and FTR rates were 28.0% and 19.4%, respectively. Both remained stable during the study period. EP was spontaneous in 68.2%, due to esophageal cancer in 19.7%, iatrogenic postendoscopy in 7.3%, and due to foreign body ingestion in 4.7%. Primary management consisted of surgery (n = 1447,30.4%), endoscopy (n = 590,12.4%), isolated drainage (n = 336,7.0%), and conservative management (n = 2392,50.2%). After multivariate analysis, besides age and comorbidity, esophageal cancer was predictive of both 90dM and FTR. An annual threshold of ≥8 EP managed annually was associated with a reduced 90dM and FTR rate. In France, only some university hospitals fulfilled this condition. Furthermore, primary surgery was associated with a lower 90dDM and FTR rate despite an increase in MM.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide evidence for the referral of EP to high-volume centers with multidisciplinary expertise. Surgery remains an effective treatment for EP.

Esophageal emergencies

The esophagus is a deeply located organ which traverses the neck, the thorax, and the abdomen and is surrounded at each level by vital organs. Because of its positioning injuries to the esophagus are rare. Their common denominator is the risk of the organ perforation leading to spillage of digestive contents in surrounding spaces, severe sepsis and eventually death. Most frequent esophageal emergencies are related to the ingestion of foreign bodies or caustic agents, to iatrogenic or spontaneous esophageal perforation and external esophageal trauma. Early diagnosis and appropriate management are the keys of successful outcomes.

Repair, Reconstruct, or Divert: Fate of the Perforated Esophagus

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine differences in esophageal perforation populations undergoing different advanced interventions for perforated esophagus and identify predictors of treatment outcomes.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Contained esophageal perforation can often be managed expectantly, but uncontained perforation is uniformly fatal without invasive intervention. Treatment options for the latter range from simple endoscopic control through advanced intervention. Clinical presentation varies greatly and directs which intervention is most appropriate.

METHODS

From 1996 to 2017, 335 patients were treated for esophageal perforation, and 166 for advanced interventions: 74 primary repair with tissue flap (repair), 26 esophagectomy and gastric pull-up (resection), and 66 esophagectomy and immediate diversion with planned delayed reconstruction (resection-diversion). Patient characteristics, clinical presentation, operative outcomes, and survival were abstracted. Pittsburgh Severity Scores (PSS) were retrospectively calculated. Random survival forest analysis was performed for 90-day mortality and competing risks for reconstruction after resection-diversion.

RESULTS

Repair and resection patients had lower PSS than resection-diversion patients (3 vs 3 vs 6, respectively). Ninety-day mortality for repair, resection, and resection-diversion was 11% vs 7.7% vs 23%, and 5-year survival was 71% vs 63% vs 47%. Risk of death after resection-diversion was highest within 1 year, but 52% of patients had reconstruction of the upper alimentary tract within 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Several advanced interventions exist for critically ill patients with uncontained esophageal perforation. Repair and organ preservation are always preferred; however, patients at extremes of illness might best be treated with resection-diversion, with the understanding that the competing risk of death may preclude eventual reconstruction.

Unrecognized digestive toxicities of radiation therapy

The aim of this article is to review unrecognized toxicities resulting from radiation therapy of digestive neoplasms. Due to their precocious occurrence, acute toxicities are well-known by radiation oncologist, and their treatment well-established. Thus, acute toxicities will not be described in this review. We will focus on incidence, diagnosis, and management of late and uncommon toxicities occurring in the digestive tract and digestive organs. Prevention, by respecting healthy tissues constraints, is the main tool to reduce incidence of those rare complications. Nonetheless, once installed, late toxicities remain a major burden in terms of quality of life and can even be life threatening. Hence, information and education about their diagnosis and management is important.

Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforation: A single-center experience and a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal perforation has been one of the serious clinical emergencies, because of the high mortality and complication rates. However, the current prognosis of esophageal perforation and the outcomes of available treatment methods are not well defined. This study attempted to pool the immediate outcomes of esophageal perforation in the past 2 decades.

METHODS

The clinical data of 22 consecutive adult patients with esophageal perforation in our center were analyzed. A pooled analysis was also conducted to summarize results from the literatures published between 1999 and 2020. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed, and their methodological quality was examined.

RESULTS

The mortality and complication rates in our center were 4.55% and 31.82%, separately. The pooled analysis included 45 studies published between 1999 and 2019, which highlighted an overall immediate mortality rate of 9.86%. Surgical treatments were associated with a pooled immediate mortality of 10.01%, and for conservative treatments of 6.49%. Besides, in the past decade, the mortality and complication rates decreased by 27.12% and 46.75%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the past 2 decades, the overall immediate mortality rate of esophageal perforation was about 10% in the worldwide, and the outcomes of esophageal perforation treatment are getting better in the last 10 years.

ETHICS REGISTRATION INFORMATION

LW2020011.

Self-expanding metal stent in esophageal perforations and anastomotic leaks

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Placement of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment option for esophageal perforation and leaks. The aim of our study was to assess the role of SEMS for the management of benign esophageal diseases such as perforations and anastomotic leaks.

METHODS

All patients (n = 26) who underwent SEMS placement for esophageal perforation and anastomotic leaks between May 2012 and February 2019 were included. Data were analyzed in relation to the indications, type of stent used, complications, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Indications for stent placement included anastomotic leaks 65% (n = 17) and perforations 35% (n = 9). Fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) was placed in 25 patients, and in 1, partially covered SEMS (PCSEMS) was placed. Stent placement was successful in all the patients (n = 26). Four patients did not report for follow-up after stenting. Among the patients on follow-up, 91% (20/22) had healing of the mucosal defect. Stent-related complications were seen in 5 (23%) patients and included stent migration [3], reactive hyperplasia [1] and stricture [1].

CONCLUSION

Covered stent placement for a duration of 8 weeks is technically safe and clinically effective as a first-line procedure for bridging and healing benign esophageal perforation and leaks.

Tissue glue: a potential role in the management of intraoperative oesophageal perforation

An 85-year-old man suffering from oropharyngeal dysphagia due to a pharyngeal pouch and cricopharyngeal spasm underwent endoscopic stapling of the pouch under general anaesthesia. During the procedure, an iatrogenic perforation of the oesophagus was noticed. After considering several options, 5 mL of Tisseel tissue glue was used to seal the perforation intraoperatively. The patient was started on intravenous co-amoxiclav, kept nil by mouth and fed via a nasogastric tube. After 4 days of observation mediastinal collection and any leakage was ruled out with a gastrografin contrast swallow procedure. At this point he was considered safe for oral intake.

Esophageal emergencies: WSES guidelines

The esophagus traverses three body compartments (neck, thorax, and abdomen) and is surrounded at each level by vital organs. Injuries to the esophagus may be classified as foreign body ingestion, caustic ingestion, esophageal perforation, and esophageal trauma. These lesions can be life-threatening either by digestive contamination of surrounding structures in case of esophageal wall breach or concomitant damage of surrounding organs. Early diagnosis and timely therapeutic intervention are the keys of successful management.

Sepsis in Acute Mediastinitis - A Severe Complication after Oesophageal Perforations. A Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advancements in antibiotic therapy and the progress made in critical care and modern diagnostic methods, acute mediastinitis continues to be a severe condition.

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT

Acute mediastinitis can occur in the context of cardio-thoracic surgery, oesophageal perforations and oropharyngeal infections condition. Forty-five percent of oesophageal perforations occurs during simple endoscopy. Spontaneous perforation (Boerhaave syndrome) accounts for 15% of perforations, and twelve percent are due to the ingestion of foreign bodies. Other causes include blind or penetrating trauma, and circa 9% to intraoperative lesions. CT scan is the standard investigation that reveals direct signs of mediastinitis.The oral administration of contrast substances can underscore the level of oesophageal perforation. Conservative treatment is the first-choice treatment and surgical treatment is reserved only for specific situations.The principles of surgical treatment consist of drainage, primary suture, oesophageal exclusion with or without the application of oesophagectomy, endoscopic vacuum wound assisted therapy of the perforation and associated paraoesophageal mediastinal drainage and endoscopic stenting associated with drainage.

CONCLUSIONS

The lowest mortality rate is recorded in patients with perforations diagnosed less than twenty-four hours after the onset of symptoms. Surgical treatment remains the gold standard especially in cases of thoracic and abdominal perforations while further investigations are mandatory before endoscopic stenting is carried out.

Does the Pittsburgh Severity Score predict outcome in esophageal perforation?

Esophageal perforation is an uncommon and challenging surgical emergency associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. At present, no consensus exists on optimal management of the condition. The Pittsburgh Severity Score (PSS) is a tool intended to stratify perforation severity and guide treatment. However, there is a paucity of literature examining the validity of the score or its application in a UK population. This study aims to validate the PSS and explore its use in stratifying patients with esophageal perforation into distinct subgroups with differential outcomes in an independent UK study population.All patients treated for esophageal perforation at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham between September 2003 and October 2017 were included in this study. Cases were identified using a combination of ICD-10 and OPCS informatics search codes and prospective case collection. Data relating to the clinical presentation, diagnosis, management, and outcome of cases were recorded using a preformed data collection form. PSS predictive performance was assessed against five outcomes: rates of post-perforation and post-operative complications, in-hospital mortality, length of intensive care (ICU/HDU) stay, and total length of hospital stay.A total of 87 cases were identified, consisting of 48 (55%) iatrogenic perforations, 24 (28%) cases of spontaneous (Boerhaave's) perforation, and 15 perforations due to other etiologies (17%). Operative management was favored in this series, with 47% of all perforations being treated surgically. Overall in-hospital mortality was 13%, coupled with a median length of hospital stay of 24 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 12-49), of which a median of 2 days was spent in intensive care facilities (IQR: 0-14). A total of 46% of patients developed post-perforation complications, with 59% of the operatively managed cohort developing complications post-operatively.The PSS was not found to be significantly predictive of post-perforation complications (area under the ROC curve [AUROC]: 0.62, p = 0.053) or in-hospital mortality (AUROC: 0.69, p = 0.057) for the cohort as a whole. However, a subgroup analysis found the accuracy of the PSS to vary considerably by etiology, being significantly predictive of post-perforation complications within the subgroup of Boerhaave's perforations (AUROC: 0.86, p = 0.004).In conclusion, we found that the PSS has some utility in stratifying esophageal perforation severity and predicting specific patient outcomes. However, it appears to be of more value when applied to the subgroup of patients with Boerhaave's perforations.

Outcomes following the main treatment options in patients with a leaking esophagus: a systematic literature review

Leakage from the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction can be lethal due to uncontrolled contamination of the mediastinum. The most predominant risk factors for the subsequent clinical outcome are the patients' delay as well as the delay of diagnosis. Two major therapeutic concepts have been advocated: either prompt closure of the leakage by insertion of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or more traditionally, surgical exploration. The objective of this review is to carefully scrutinize the recent literature and assess the outcomes of these two therapeutic alternatives in the management of iatrogenic perforation-spontaneous esophageal rupture as separated from those with anastomotic leak. A systematic web-based search using PubMed and the Cochrane Library was performed, reviewing literature published between January 2005 and December 2015. Eligible studies included all studies that presented data on the outcome of SEMS or surgical exploration in case of esophageal leak (including >3 patients). Only patients older than 15 years of age by the time of admission were included. Articles in other languages but English were excluded. Treatment failure was defined as a need for change in therapeutic strategy due to uncontrolled sepsis and mediastinitis, which usually meant rescue esophagectomy with end esophagostomy, death occurring as a consequence of the leakage or development of an esophagorespiratory fistula and/or other serious life threatening complications. Accordingly, the corresponding success rate is composed of cases where none of the failures above occurred. Regarding SEMS treatment, 201 articles were found, of which 48 were deemed relevant and of these, 17 articles were further analyzed. As for surgical management, 785 articles were retrieved, of which 82 were considered relevant, and 17 were included in the final analysis. It was not possible to specifically extract detailed clinical outcomes in sufficient numbers, when we tried to separately analyze the data in relation to the cause of the leakage: i.e. iatrogenic perforation-spontaneous esophageal rupture and anastomotic leak. As for SEMS treatment, originally 154 reports focused on iatrogenic perforation, 116 focused on spontaneous ruptures, and only four described the outcome following trauma and foreign body management. Only five studies used a prospective protocol to assess treatment efficacy. Regarding a leaking anastomosis, 80 reports contained information about the outcome after treatment of esophagogastrostomies and 35 reported the clinical course after an esophagojejunostomy. An overall success rate of 88% was reported among the 371 SEMS-treated patients, where adequate data were available, with a reported in hospital mortality amounting to 7.5%. Regarding the surgical exploration strategy, the vast majority of patients had an attempt to repair the defect by direct or enforced suturing. This surgical approach also included procedures such as patching with pleura or with a diaphragmatic flap. The overall reported success rate was 83% (305/368) and the in-hospital mortality was 17% (61/368). The current literature suggests that a SEMS-based therapy can be successfully applied as an alternative therapeutic strategy in esophageal perforation rupture.

European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery expert consensus statement on the prevention and management of mediastinitis

Mediastinitis continues to be an important and life-threatening complication after median sternotomy despite advances in prevention and treatment strategies, with an incidence of 0.25-5%. It can also occur as extension of infection from adjacent structures such as the oesophagus, airways and lungs, or as descending necrotizing infection from the head and neck. In addition, there is a chronic form of 'chronic fibrosing mediastinitis' usually caused by granulomatous infections. In this expert consensus, the evidence for strategies for treatment and prevention of mediatinitis is reviewed in detail aiming at reducing the incidence and optimizing the management of this serious condition.

Management and outcomes of anastomotic leaks after oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Leaks following oesophagectomy include true anastomotic leaks, leaks from the gastrotomy and gastric conduit necrosis. Historically, these complications were associated with high mortality rates. Recent improvements in outcome have been attributed to the wider use of oesophageal stents in patient management. This study examined outcomes of patients who developed a leak in a single high-volume institution that did not use stenting as a primary treatment modality.

METHODS

All patients undergoing an oesophagectomy between January 2009 and December 2013 were included. Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

A total of 390 oesophagectomies were performed (median age 65 (range 32-81) years). In 96·7 per cent of patients this was a two-stage subtotal oesophagectomy. Overall in-hospital and 90-day mortality rates were both 2·1 per cent (8 patients). Some 31 patients (7·9 per cent) developed a leak (median age 64·5 (range 52-80) years), of whom 27 (87 per cent) were initially managed without surgery, whereas four (13 per cent) required immediate thoracotomy. The median length of stay for patients with a leak was 41·5 (range 15-159) days; none of these patients died.

CONCLUSION

Leaks can be managed with excellent outcomes without using oesophageal stents. The results do not support the widespread adoption of endoscopic stenting.

An Unusual Case of Spontaneous Esophageal Rupture after Swallowing a Boneless Chicken Nugget

A 25-year-old previously healthy man presented to our Emergency Department with shortness of breath and epigastric pain after swallowing a boneless chicken nugget one hour prior to presentation. Physical examination revealed epigastric rigidity and tenderness. Serology was normal except for mildly elevated bilirubin and amylase. Computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest revealed a distal esophageal rupture with accompanying pneumomediastinum and left-sided pleural effusion. Treatment was initiated with administration of intravenous fluids and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Subsequently, an esophageal stent was inserted endoscopically in addition to VATS (Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery) drainage of the left-sided pleural space. This case illustrates an unusual presentation of Boerhaave's syndrome: a rare and life-threatening form of noniatrogenic esophageal rupture most often preceded by forceful vomiting. Our case demonstrates that physicians should maintain an index of suspicion for spontaneous esophageal rupture in patients presenting with shortness of breath and epigastric pain even in the absence of preceding vomiting, cough, or seizure. Additionally, ingestion of boneless, shell-less foods may be sufficient to cause rupture in individuals without underlying esophageal pathology. CT scan of the thorax and upper abdomen should be performed in these patients to rule out this rare and life-threatening diagnosis.

Spotlight on esophageal perforation: A multinational study using the Pittsburgh esophageal perforation severity scoring system

OBJECTIVE

The Pittsburgh group has suggested a perforation severity score (PSS) for better decision making in the management of esophageal perforation. Our study aim was to determine whether the PSS can be used to stratify patients with esophageal perforation into distinct subgroups with differential outcomes in an independent study population.

METHODS

In a retrospective study cases of esophageal perforation were collected (study-period, 1990-2014). The PSS was analyzed using logistic regression as a continuous variable and stratified into low, intermediate, and high score groups.

RESULTS

Data for 288 patients (mean age, 59.9 years) presenting with esophageal perforation (during the period 1990-2014) were abstracted. Etiology was spontaneous (Boerhaave; n = 119), iatrogenic (instrumentation; n = 85), and traumatic perforation (n = 84). Forty-three patients had coexisting esophageal cancer. The mean PSS was 5.82, and was significantly higher in patients with fatal outcome (n = 57; 19.8%; mean PSS, 9.79 vs 4.84; P < .001). Mean PSS was also significantly higher in patients receiving operative management (n = 200; 69%; mean PSS, 6.44 vs 4.40; P < .001). Using the Pittsburgh strata, patients were assigned to low PSS (≤2; n = 63), intermediate PSS (3-5; n = 86), and high PSS (>5; n = 120) groups. Perforation-related morbidity, length of stay, frequency of operative treatment, and mortality increased with increasing PSS strata. Patients with high PSS were 3.37 times more likely to have operative management compared with low PSS.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pittsburgh PSS reliably reflects the seriousness of esophageal perforation and stratifies patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups with differential morbidity and mortality outcomes.

Management and Outcomes of Esophageal Perforation: A National Study of 2,564 Patients in England

OBJECTIVES

Traditionally esophageal perforation is a rare clinical emergency that confers a high rate of mortality and major morbidity. The objective of this study was to establish the annual rate and mortality from esophageal perforation and determine the effect of hospital volume on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Hospital Episode Statistics database was used for the identification of patients admitted to hospitals within England with esophageal perforation between 2001 and 2012. The influence of hospital volume and treatment approach upon clinical outcomes was analyzed using multivariable analysis to control for patient age and medical comorbidities that may influence outcome.

RESULTS

Over the 12-year study period 2,564 patients with esophageal perforation were treated at 158 hospitals. The 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 30.0 and 38.8%, respectively. Esophageal perforation etiology was spontaneous in 81.9% and iatrogenic in 5.9% of cases. There was a significant increase in the percentage of patients managed supportively and a reduction in surgical management over time. Furthermore there were significant reductions in 30-day (36.6% to 24.9%; P<0.001) and 90-day mortality (44.1% to 35.4%; P=0.006) over the 12-year study period. Important patient demographics associated with 30- and 90-day mortality included age ≥70 years, preoperative congestive cardiac failure, ischemic heart, liver, and renal disease. High hospital volume was associated with significant reductions in 30- (odds ratio (OR)=0.68; P=0.001) and 90-day mortality (OR=0.69; P=0.001). In a subset analysis of patients undergoing endoscopic intervention, hospital volume was identified as an important factor associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence for the centralization of management of esophageal perforation to high volume centers with appropriate multi-disciplinary infrastructure to treat these complex patients.

Emergency oesophagectomy for oesophageal perforation after chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Oesophageal perforation following chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer is a devastating condition but there have been no studies investigating the role of emergency oesophagectomy for this life threatening situation.

METHODS

This retrospective study comprised all cases of emergency oesophagectomy for oesophageal perforation after chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal carcinoma at a major centre for oesophageal surgery in Germany between 2004 and 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 13 patients (mean age: 58.9 years) were identified. During the same time period, 356 elective oesophagectomies were performed. Tumour entities were squamous cell carcinoma (n=12) and adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus (n=1). Alcoholism (odds ratio [OR]: 25.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.70-121.70, p<0.0001) and chronic pulmonary disease (OR: 3.76, 95% CI: 1.06-14.96, p=0.027) were more common among the emergency cases. Oesophageal rupture was caused by perforation of an oesophageal stent (10 cases) or perforation during implantation of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (3 cases). Emergency oesophagectomy was carried out either as discontinuity resection (10/13) or oesophagectomy with immediate reconstruction (3/13). Compared with the elective cases, patients undergoing emergency oesophagectomy had significantly higher odds for sustaining perioperative sepsis (OR: 4.42, 95% CI: 1.23-16.45, p=0.01), acute renal failure (OR: 6.49, 95% CI: 1.57-24.15, p=0.005) and pneumonia (OR: 24.33, 95% CI: 3.52-1,046.65, p<0.0001). Furthermore, slow respiratory weaning was more common and there was a significantly higher tracheostomy rate (OR: 4.64, 95% CI: 1.14-16.98, p=0.02). Oesophageal discontinuity was eventually reversed in eight patients. Emergency oesophagectomy patients had odds that were three times higher for fatal outcome (OR: 3.59, 95% CI: 0.77-13.64, p=0.05). The overall mortality was 4/13. The remaining nine patients had a mean survival of 25.1 months (range: 5-46 months). The two-year-survival-rate was 38.5% (5/13).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the most unfavourable preconditions, the results of emergency oesophagectomy for oesophageal perforation after chemoradiotherapy are not desperate. The procedure is not only justified but life saving.

Perforations of the esophagus and stomach: what should I do?

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal and gastroduodenal perforations are relatively uncommon; however, they both can be potentially life-threatening. Esophageal perforations most commonly occur due to iatrogenic injury, forceful retching (Boerhaave's syndrome), malignancy, foreign body ingestion, or caustic injury. Gastroduodenal perforations are most commonly due to peptic ulcer disease or malignancy. Pain and signs of sepsis are the most common presenting symptoms and signs.

METHODS

Determining the extent of critical illness and addressing hemodynamics and sepsis are the first priorities. Identifying the location and size of the perforation as well as extent of contamination is the next priorities. Although surgical intervention has been the mainstay of treatment, newer approaches have led to a heterogeneity of approaches.

CONCLUSION

For esophageal perforation, observation, endoscopic, radiological, and surgical approaches may be appropriate. For gastroduodenal perforation, surgical approach is still the most appropriate, although a concomitant acid-reducing operation is usually not necessary. Despite these advances, mortality for both perforations can still be high. Sound judgment is necessary for optimal results.

Closing perforations and postperforation management in endoscopy: esophagus and stomach

Luminal perforation after endoscopy is a dreaded complication that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, longer and more costly hospitalization, and the specter of potential future litigation. The management of such perforations requires a multidisciplinary approach. Until recently, surgery was required. However, nowadays the endoscopist has a burgeoning armamentarium of devices and techniques that may obviate surgery. This article discusses the approach to endoscopic perforations in the esophagus and stomach.

Timing of esophageal stent placement and outcomes in patients with esophageal perforation: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment for esophageal perforation with stenting is an alternative to surgery. There is no data on the impact of timing of esophageal stent placement and outcomes in patients with esophageal perforation.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the significance of timing of esophageal stent placement on short-term (30-day complications) and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with esophageal perforation.

METHODS

Patients with esophageal perforations who underwent endoscopic treatment with stenting from 2007 to 2012 at the Cleveland Clinic were included for the study. Main outcomes measurements were impact of time to esophageal stent placement on 30-day complications and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (males 40 % and females 60 %) were included. Mean age was 72.5 ± 10 years. The most common etiology for perforation was iatrogenic after endoscopy procedure in 10 (50 %) patients. The stent was in place for a median of 24.6 days in our cohort. Eight patients (40 %) had stent placement within 24 h, while the remaining 12 patients (60 %) had stent placement after 24 h. The mortality rate due to perforation related causes was 10 % (2/20) in our study. The 30-day complication rate was 10 %; 1 with stent migration and the other with chest pain. The 30-day readmission rates excluding patients who died during the initial hospitalization were 10 %. On long-term follow-up, 30 % complication rates were encountered; 3 (15 %) stent migrations, 2 (10 %) patients presented with hematemesis, and 1 (5 %) with chest pain. The timing of stent placement (within 24 h or later) did not impact the risk of complications (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.13, 95 % confidence interval 0.1-8.9, P = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic stent placement is safe and effective for treating esophageal perforations. However, the timing of stent placement on outcomes remains unclear.

Against all odds. Conservative management of Boerhaave's syndrome

Spontaneous oesophageal perforation or Boerhaave's syndrome is a life-threatening condition that usually requires early diagnosis and early surgical management. A 79-year-old man presented to the accident and emergency department with an ischaemic left big toe. He reported a 2-week history of worsening symptoms and a claudication distance in his left leg of 20-30 m. Three days post-revascularisation of the leg, the patient reported chest pain radiating to the back. CT angiography of the aorta indicated Boerhaave's syndrome. Following 35 days of conservative management in the intensive care unit and high dependency unit, the patient was stepped down to a surgical ward. A water-soluble contrast study demonstrated minimal leak through the perforated oesophagus. The patient was started on oral intake, which was well tolerated. This case highlights that conservative management may be appropriate.