Surgical treatment of esophageal perforations: the importance of a primary repair

Successful Stenting Followed by Surgery for Perforated Esophageal Cancer Due to Chemotherapy

Perforation of esophageal cancer solely due to preoperative chemotherapy is extremely rare, but can be associated with pyothorax and can be difficult to treat. Here, we report the case of a successfully treated patient with thoracic esophageal cancer who had esophageal perforation during docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. A 73-year-old patient had esophageal perforation on the fourth day of the first docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil cycle. The second docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil cycle was administered after insertion of esophageal stenting and subtotal esophagectomy. Early drainage and stent placement were crucial for achieving infection control and allowing for a subsequent complete resection.

Epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of esophageal perforations: systematic review

We performed a systematic review of epidemiological, diagnostic, and therapeutic outcomes of esophageal perforations. A systematic review was performed in PubMed database using the key-phrase 'esophageal perforation'. All studies regarding acute esophageal perforations were reviewed and parameters of epidemiology, diagnosis, and management published in the literature from 2005 up to 2015 were included in the study. Studies of postoperative esophageal leaks were excluded. Two researchers performed individually the research, while quality assessment was performed according to GRADE classification. Main outcomes and exposure were overall mortality, perforation-to-admission interval, anatomical position, cause, prevalent symptom at admission, diagnostic tests used, type of initial management (conservative or surgery), healing rate, and fistula complication. There were 1319 articles retrieved, of which 52 studies including 2,830 cases finally met inclusion criteria. Mean duration of study period was 15.2 years. Mean patient age was 58.4 years. Out of 52 studies included, there were 43 studies of very low or low quality included. The overall mortality rate according to extracted data was 13.3% (n = 214, 1,644 patients, 39 studies). Admission before 24 hours was reported in 58.1% of patients (n = 514). Position was thoracic in 72.6% of patients (n = 813, 1,120 patients, 20 studies). Mean cause of perforation was iatrogenic in 46.5% of patients (n = 899, 1,933 patients, 40 studies). Initial management was conservative in 51.3% of cases (n = 904, 1,762 patients, 41 studies) CT confirmed diagnosis in 38.7% of overall cases in which it was used as imaging diagnostic procedure (n = 266), X-ray in 36.6% (n = 231), and endoscopy in 37.4% (n = 343). Sepsis on admission was observed in 23.3% of cases (209 out of 898 patients, 16 studies). The present systematic review highlighted the significant proportion of cases diagnosed with delay over 24 hours, mortality rates ranging over 10% and no consensus regarding optimal therapeutic approach and optimal diagnostic management. As esophageal perforation represents a high-risk clinical condition without consensus regarding optimal management, there should be large multicenter prospective studies or Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)s performed in order to advance diagnostic and therapeutic approach of such challenging pathology.

The use of endoluminal vacuum (E-Vac) therapy in the management of upper gastrointestinal leaks and perforations

INTRODUCTION

Upper intestinal leaks and perforations are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Despite the growing experience using endoscopically placed stents, the treatment of these leaks and perforations remain a challenge. Endoluminal vacuum (E-Vac) therapy is a novel treatment that has been successfully used in Germany to treat upper gastrointestinal leaks and perforations. There currently are no reports on its use in the USA.

METHODS

E-Vac therapy was used to treat 11 patients with upper gastrointestinal leaks and perforations from September 2013 to September 2014. Five patients with leaks following sleeve gastrectomy were excluded from this study. A total of six patients were treated with E-Vac therapy; these included: (n = 2) iatrogenic esophageal perforations, (n = 1) iatrogenic esophageal and gastric perforations, (n = 1) iatrogenic gastric perforation, (n = 1) gastric staple line leak following a surgical repair of a traumatic gastric perforation, and (n = 1) esophageal perforation due to an invasive fungal infection. Four patients had failed an initial surgical repair prior to starting E-Vac therapy.

RESULTS

All six patients (100 %) had complete closure of their perforation or leak after an average of 35.8 days of E-Vac therapy requiring 7.2 different E-Vac changes. No deaths occurred in the 30 days following E-Vac therapy. One patient died following complete closure of his perforation and transfer to an acute care facility due to an unrelated complication. There were no complications directly related to the use of E-Vac therapy. Only one patient had any symptoms of dysphagia. This patient had severe dysphagia from an esophagogastric anastomotic stricture prior to her iatrogenic perforations. Following E-Vac therapy, her dysphagia had actually improved and she could now tolerate a soft diet.

CONCLUSIONS

E-Vac therapy is a promising new method in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal leaks and perforations. Current successes need to be validated through future prospective controlled studies.