Treatment of esophageal perforation in octogenarians: a multicenter study

Advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comprehensive review of innovations in cancer diagnosis and management

The field of gastroenterology has experienced revolutionary advances over the past years, as flexible endoscopes have become widely accessible. In addition to enabling faster, less invasive, and more affordable treatment, flexible endoscopes have greatly improved the detection and endoscopic screening of malignancies and prevented many cancer-related deaths. The development and clinical application of new diagnostic endoscopic technologies, such as magnification endoscopy, narrow-band imaging, endoscopic ultrasound with biopsy, and more recently, artificial intelligence enhanced technologies, have made the recognition and detection of various neoplasms and sub-epithelial tumors more possible. This review demonstrates the latest advancements in endoscopic procedures, techniques, and devices applied in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal cancer.

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.

Retrospective Analysis of Esophageal Foreign Body Ingestion: Differences Among Weekday, Weekends, and Holidays

Purpose

Current data on the occurrence of EFBs in relation to different time periods are scant. The purpose of this study was to compare the occurrence, type and location of EFBs in people who presented at our center on weekdays, weekends and holidays.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients (n=1353) received rigid esophagoscopy for foreign body extraction under general anesthesia from January 2018 to 2020 December.

Results

The occurrence of EFB ingestion was significantly higher (p<0.05) on holidays (2.75/day) than on weekdays (0.91/day) and weekends (1.46/day). Patients were much older on holidays, with a mean age of 58.18 ± 17.34 years, than patients on weekdays (54.71 ± 16.71 years) and weekends (55.05 ± 17.36 years).

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate that EFB ingestion is most likely to occur on weekends and holidays, and elderly patients should be advised to chewing slowly and eating non-nuclear jujube, especially during holidays, to minimize their risk.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020

1:  ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3:  ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Esophageal foreign bodies: observational cohort study and factors associated with recurrent impaction

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Esophageal foreign bodies, including food bolus impaction, represent a common clinical problem. The prevalence of underlying esophageal disease depends on study design and degree of suspicion of a structural or functional esophageal abnormality. Aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with recurrent impaction.

METHODS

The prospectively collected database at a University Hospital and Swallowing Center was reviewed from January 2012 to June 2019 to identify all patients admitted for esophageal foreign bodies. Patients who underwent an emergency endoscopic procedure represented the final study sample. Patient characteristics, including history of previous esophageal foreign bodies, and type of endoscopic procedure were collected.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients, 41 males and 24 females with a median age of 59 years, underwent emergency endoscopy for esophageal foreign bodies during the study period. Food bolus was the most common foreign body (n = 43, 66%). Flexible endoscopy was successful in retrieving or pushing the foreign bodies in the stomach in 91% of patients. In 54% of patients, impaction was secondary to an underlying esophageal disorder, which was previously unrecognized in half of them. Recurrent impaction was more common in patients with esophageal disease (P < 0.011). Surgical therapy was required in 4 patients (6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Food bolus impaction is a common sentinel event in patients with underlying esophageal disease and is associated with recurrent impaction. Diagnostic endoscopy with biopsies should possibly be performed at the first episode of impaction. Patients with negative biopsies should undergo barium swallow study and high-resolution esophageal manometry.

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.

Esophageal foreign bodies in adults: systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Esophageal Foreign Body (FB) impaction represents a major challenge for healthcare providers. Aim of this systematic review was to analyse the current literature evidence on prevalence, presentation, treatment, and outcomes of impacted esophageal FB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted between 2000 and 30th June 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies matched the inclusion criteria. The total number of included patients was 13,092. The cervical esophagus was the most frequent impaction site (67%) and sharp-pointed objects were the most common FB (38.1%). Retrosternal pain (78%), dysphagia (48%), and odynophagia (43.4%) were the most common symptoms. A flexible or rigid endoscopic approach was adopted in 65.1% and 16.8% of patients, respectively. Overall, 17.8% of patients had a complication related to the impacted esophageal FB or to the endoscopic manoeuvers. A surgical approach was required in 3.4% of patients. The overall mortality was 0.85%.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery is the upfront treatment in patients with esophageal perforation or endoscopically irretrievable esophageal FB. A minimally invasive approach can be adopted in selected patients. Effective prevention of FB impaction should focus on accurate diagnostic work-up to search for an underlying motility disorder after a first episode of esophageal impaction, even if transient and self-resolving.

Surgical management and prognostic factors in esophageal perforation caused by foreign body

OBJECTIVES

Esophageal perforation is associated with multiple serious complications and high mortality. Herein, we identify some predictors for postoperative outcomes, compare the outcomes of various surgical approaches, and summarize our experience with esophageal perforation over the past 13 years.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 38 patients diagnosed with esophageal perforation caused by foreign body between November 2004 and May 2018. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify potential risk factors related to prognosis. Effects of different surgery were compared based on postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 38 patients, the number of females was equal to males with a mean age of 55.6 ± 14.9 (range 23-93) years; 22 had thoracic perforations and 16 had cervical perforations. The overall mortality rate was 5.3%. Univariate analysis revealed that sex (p = 0.049), type of foreign body (p = 0.042), abscess (p = 0.049), and site of perforation (p = 0.031) were associated with prognosis. The interval between perforation and surgery did not significantly influence prognosis (p = 0.929). No significant difference was found in postoperative outcomes among various surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

The interval between perforation and treatment was not as important as previously reported. Surgical management should be performed early when feasible, even if the interval between perforation and surgery is 24 h or longer.

Oesophageal perforation – therapeutic and diagnostics challenge. Retrospective, single-center case report analysis (2009–2015)

Background: Esophageal perforation is a life-threatening condition of a complex etiology. No clear guidelines are available regarding the management of this condition. In this study, we review publications related to esophageal perforation, and analyze patients treated for this condition at our Department of Thoracic, General and Oncological Surgery. Objective: The objective of the study was to retrospectively assess and analyze management methods for esophageal perforations of different etiologies. All patients were treated in the Department of Thoracic, General and Oncological Surgery in years 2009-2015. Patients with perforations resulting from post-operational leaks within surgical anastomoses were excluded from the study. Material, methods, results: The analysis involved a total of 16 cases of esophageal ruptures. All cases were treated in years 2009-2015. Patients with perforations resulting from postoperative leaks within surgical anastomoses following elective surgeries for either oncological or non-oncological causes were excluded. The most common reason for esophageal rupture was iatrogenic injury (7 cases, 44%). Other causes included Boerhaave syndrome (5 cases, 31.2%), blunt trauma (2 cases, 12.5%), abscess perforation (1 case, 6.2%), and ulcer perforation (1 case, 6.2%). Ten patients underwent surgery, and the rest underwent esophageal prosthesis placement, of whom 2 cases required drainage of the mediastinum and pleural cavity. The mortality rate in the study group was 9/16 cases (56.2%). Conclusions: Esophageal perforation poses a significant interdisciplinary challenge regarding diagnostic workup, selection of treatment methods, and management of potential postoperative complications. This retrospective study was conducted in a single center. Although the analyzed period was long, we found only 16 cases. In spite of a variety of etiologies present, we found several statistically significant results of potential clinical value. 1. Most perforations that are not diagnosed within 48 hours affected the lower part of the esophagus and presented with unclear symptoms and imaging findings 2. Delaying diagnosis and treatment beyond 24 hours was associated with a higher mortality rate.

Hydropneumothorax Due to Esophageal Rupture

BACKGROUND

A brief review of the historical aspects of esophageal rupture is presented along with a case and current recommendations for diagnostic evaluation and treatment.

CASE REPORT

A 97-year-old woman complained of acute dyspnea without prior vomiting. Chest x-ray study showed a large right pneumothorax with associated effusion. A thoracostomy tube was placed with return of > 1 L turbid fluid with polymicrobial culture and elevated pleural fluid amylase level. Chest computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrated overt leakage of oral contrast into the right pleural space. She was treated with ongoing pleural evacuation, antibiotics, antifungals, and total parenteral nutrition. The patient and family declined surgical resection as well as endoscopic stent placement. In 1724, Boerhaave described spontaneous rupture of the esophagus postmortem; Boerhaave syndrome remains the name for complete disruption of the esophageal wall in the absence of pre-existing pathology typically occurring after vomiting. It most commonly occurs in the distal left posterolateral thoracic esophagus. Contrast esophagram is considered the "gold standard" for diagnosing esophageal rupture although CT esophagography also shows good diagnostic performance. Treatment includes nil per os status, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and drainage of the pleural space. Surgical repair of the esophageal perforation should be done early if the patient is deemed a good candidate, and esophageal stenting is also an option. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Esophageal perforation should be suspected in patients with new pleural effusion, often with overt pneumothorax, that is polymicrobial with elevated amylase.

[Incidence and Clinical Features of Esophageal Perforation Caused by Ingested Foreign Body]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Esophageal perforation is a rare but often a life-threatening condition. However, the incidence and clinical features of esophageal perforation caused by ingested foreign body are unknown. This study investigated the incidence of esophageal perforation caused by ingested foreign body and evaluated the clinical features and outcome of patients with esophageal perforation.

METHODS

Among a total of 196 adult patients with confirmed esophageal foreign body and complained of at least one of the related symptoms at the emergency department between January 2000 and July 2008, 18 patients with esophageal perforation due to esophageal foreign body ingestion were included in the study. Data were collected by retrospectively reviewing the electric medical records.

RESULTS

The incidence of esophageal foreign body and esophageal perforation in adults was 19.4% (196/1,009) and 1.8% (18/1,009), respectively. Chest pain was the most common symptom and fishbone was the most common foreign body causing esophageal perforation. Mediastinitis or mediastinal abscess occurred in 13 patients (13/18, 72.2%). About half (8/18) of the patients were admitted to the intensive care unit but there was no in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of esophageal perforation in patients with foreign body ingestion was low but it increased up to 9.2% in patients with esophageal foreign body. However, prognosis was favorable with timely proper treatment. Chest pain can be an ominous sign indicating the presence of esophageal perforation in patients with esophageal foreign body.

[Endoscopic vacuum therapy of perforations and anastomotic insufficiency of the esophagus]

BACKGROUND

The high morbidity and mortality of esophageal defects show that the clinical challenge in the treatment of this disease still remains. An innovative method which has been developed in recent years for esophageal leakage is endoscopic vacuum therapy.

OBJECTIVES

A retrospective analysis of all patients treated for esophageal perforation with endoscopic vacuum therapy in our department was carried out.

METHODS

From November 2006 to October 2013 a total of 35 patients were treated with this method and of these 21 had anastomotic leakage, 7 had iatrogenic perforation due to flexible or rigid endoscopy and 7 patients had esophageal defects of various other origins. Drainage systems with an open pore polyurethane tip were placed using a standard endoscope. The vacuum drainage may be positioned either in the esophageal lumen onto the defect or through the defect into the extraluminal wound cavity. The intraluminal or intracavitary vacuum drainage is connected to an electronically controlled vacuum device and a continuous negative pressure of 125 mmHg is maintained for several days. The esophageal lumen or wound cavity collapses around the drainage resulting in intraluminal evacuation and closure of the defect. Under endoscopic monitoring the vacuum system is changed regularly until stable secondary healing of the intracorporeal wound or closure of the transmural defect is achieved.

RESULTS

In 32 out of 35 patients (91.4 %) healing of defects was achieved after median treatment duration of 11 days (range 4-78 days). The postoperative anastomotic leakage healed in 20 out of 21 patients (95.2 %) after a median of 11 days (range 4-46 days) of therapy. The defects in the 7 patients who were treated for iatrogenic perforation all healed (100 %) after a median treatment time of 5 days (range 4-7 days). There was one case of a recurrent fistula 75 days after treatment. The 90-day mortality in this series of 35 patients was 5.7 %.

DISCUSSION

The results of this retrospective study emphasize the increasing importance of endoscopic vacuum therapy in the current literature as an endoscopic treatment method in the management of esophageal perforation and anastomotic leakage.

Endoscopic clips for the closure of acute iatrogenic perforations: Where do we stand?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Iatrogenic perforation of the gut during endoscopy remains an uncommon but critical complication with significant morbidity and probable mortality than usual surgical treatment. Some authors have adopted a non-surgical closure method in chosen cases and, since 1993, endoclips have been used to close perforation in the stomach. The endoscopic practice of endoclips has been commonly used in the gut for hemostasis. Currently, the use of endoscopic techniques is increasing for the closure of endoscopic submucosal dissection or endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopic perforations that improved with endoscopic closure in the literature prior to 2008 have been previously described. In the present article, we present a descriptive review of cases with iatrogenic perforation in the gut treated with endoclips between 2008 and 2014.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature screening and a systematic review using PubMed and Medline was done for all reports published between January 2008 and December 2014 using the endoclip technique in the closure of iatrogenic perforations.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies published between 2008 and 2014 using endoclips for the closure of iatrogenic perforations of the gut (nine esophagus, 11 stomach, 15 duodenum, 12 colon and rectum) were found. All studies were explained briefly and summarized in a table.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence to show the efficacy of endoclips in the management of iatrogenic perforations, especially when recognized early. Limitations of endoclipping such as inefficiency against large perforations may be overcome by improving novel techniques in the future.

Endotherapy of leaks and fistula

Perforations, leaks and fistula involving gastrointestinal (GI) tract are increasing encountered in clinical practice. There is a changing paradigm for their management with surgical approach being replaced by conservative approach including endoscopic therapy. Clips (through the scope and over the scope) and covered stent are front runners for endotherapy for GI leaks and fistula. Over the scope clips introduced recently, can treat larger defects compared to through the scope clips. Covered stents are suited for larger defects and those associated with luminal narrowing. However cervical esophagus, gastro-esophageal junction, stomach and right colonic lesions may be better for clip therapy rather than stenting. Recent developments in this field include use of endovac therapy which consists of a sponge with suction device, biodegradable stent, use of fibrin glue and some endo-suturing device. Conservative therapy with no surgical or endoscopic intervention, may be suitable for a small subset of patients. An algorithm based on location, size of defect, associated stricture, infection and available expertise needs to be developed to reduce the mortality and morbidity of this difficult clinical problem.

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.