Esophageal perforation: a retrospective report of outcomes at a single center

Balázs Kovács, T. Masuda, R. Bremner, Michael A. Smith, Jasmine L. Huang, A. Hashimi, Chirag Patel, Shair Ahmed, S. Mittal
{"title":"Esophageal perforation: a retrospective report of outcomes at a single center","authors":"Balázs Kovács, T. Masuda, R. Bremner, Michael A. Smith, Jasmine L. Huang, A. Hashimi, Chirag Patel, Shair Ahmed, S. Mittal","doi":"10.21037/AOE-20-17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Esophageal perforation is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent treatment for esophageal perforation at a tertiary referral hospital. Methods: A patient database was queried for patients treated for esophageal perforation between May 2014 and September 2017. Charts were retrospectively reviewed. The Pittsburgh perforation severity score (PSS) was calculated to assess the degree of perforation severity for each patient. Results: In total, 56 patients with esophageal perforation met inclusion criteria for this study. Thirty-nine patients (69.6%) were men, the mean age of the patients was 60 years. The most common causes of esophageal perforation were iatrogenic (24/56, 42.9%) and Boerhaave syndrome (12/56, 21.4%). The most common site of perforation was the thoracic esophagus (38/56, 67.9%). Eight patients were treated conservatively, a stent-only approach was used in 8 patients, and 40 patients underwent surgery. Seventeen/40 of these patients underwent debridement and drainage; 8 of those 17 also received stenting of the perforation site. Primary repair was used in 16 patients. Of these 16 patients, 2 also received a stent. Seven patients underwent esophagectomy. Overall mortality within 1 month was 5.4% (3 patients); this was similar to the predicted value. Subgroup comparison failed to reveal a significant advantage of stent use. Conclusions: The leading causes of esophageal perforation were iatrogenic injury and Boerhaave syndrome. The Pittsburgh PSS correlated well with the need for aggressive surgical intervention and length of stay in the intensive care unit.","PeriodicalId":72217,"journal":{"name":"Annals of esophagus","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of esophagus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/AOE-20-17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Esophageal perforation is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent treatment for esophageal perforation at a tertiary referral hospital. Methods: A patient database was queried for patients treated for esophageal perforation between May 2014 and September 2017. Charts were retrospectively reviewed. The Pittsburgh perforation severity score (PSS) was calculated to assess the degree of perforation severity for each patient. Results: In total, 56 patients with esophageal perforation met inclusion criteria for this study. Thirty-nine patients (69.6%) were men, the mean age of the patients was 60 years. The most common causes of esophageal perforation were iatrogenic (24/56, 42.9%) and Boerhaave syndrome (12/56, 21.4%). The most common site of perforation was the thoracic esophagus (38/56, 67.9%). Eight patients were treated conservatively, a stent-only approach was used in 8 patients, and 40 patients underwent surgery. Seventeen/40 of these patients underwent debridement and drainage; 8 of those 17 also received stenting of the perforation site. Primary repair was used in 16 patients. Of these 16 patients, 2 also received a stent. Seven patients underwent esophagectomy. Overall mortality within 1 month was 5.4% (3 patients); this was similar to the predicted value. Subgroup comparison failed to reveal a significant advantage of stent use. Conclusions: The leading causes of esophageal perforation were iatrogenic injury and Boerhaave syndrome. The Pittsburgh PSS correlated well with the need for aggressive surgical intervention and length of stay in the intensive care unit.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食管穿孔:单中心治疗结果的回顾性报告
背景:食管穿孔具有高发病率和死亡率。本研究的目的是评估在三级转诊医院接受食管穿孔治疗的患者的预后。方法:查询2014年5月至2017年9月期间接受食管穿孔治疗的患者数据库。对图表进行回顾性审查。计算匹兹堡穿孔严重程度评分(PSS)来评估每位患者的穿孔严重程度。结果:共有56例食管穿孔患者符合本研究的纳入标准。男性39例(69.6%),平均年龄60岁。食管穿孔最常见的原因是医源性(24/56,42.9%)和Boerhaave综合征(12/56,21.4%)。最常见的穿孔部位为胸段食道(38/56,67.9%)。8例患者接受保守治疗,8例患者采用单纯支架入路,40例患者接受手术治疗。其中17 /40的患者进行了清创和引流;其中8例同时行穿孔部位支架置入术。16例患者行一期修复。在这16例患者中,2例也接受了支架。7例患者行食管切除术。1个月内总死亡率为5.4%(3例);这与预测值相似。亚组比较未能显示支架使用的显著优势。结论:医源性损伤和Boerhaave综合征是导致食管穿孔的主要原因。匹兹堡PSS与需要积极的手术干预和在重症监护病房的停留时间密切相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Differential impact of post-neoadjuvant stage on overall survival for surgically treated oesophageal cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation: a retrospective cohort study Endoluminal vacuum therapy using a fenestrated surgical drain for management of anastomotic leak following esophagectomy Hot potato causing full-thickness esophageal burn and perforation: a case report The sequel of age and frailty on the pathophysiology and treatment of surgical esophageal diseases Post-operative gastroesophageal reflux disease after one anastomosis gastric bypass, a narrative review of the literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1