BACKGROUND:Management of acute esophageal perforation continues to evolve. We hypothesized that treatment of these patients at a tertiary referral center is more important than beginning treatment within 24 hours, and that the evolving application of nonsurgical treatment techniques by surgeons would produce improved outcomes. STUDY DESIGN:Demographics and outcomes of patients treated for esophageal perforation from 1989 to 2009 were recorded in an Institutional Review Board-approved database. Retrospective outcomes assessment was done for 5 separate time spans, including timing and type of treatment, length of stay (LOS), complications, and mortality. RESULTS:Eighty-one consecutive patients presented with acute esophageal perforation. Their mean age was 64 years, and 55 patients (68%) had American Society of Anesthesiologists levels 3 to 5; 59% of the study population was referred from other hospitals; 48 patients (59%) were managed operatively, 33 (41%) nonoperatively, and 10 patients with hybrid approaches involving a combination of surgical and interventional techniques; 57 patients (70%) were treated <24 hours and 24 (30%) received treatment >24 hours after perforation. LOS was lower in the early-treatment group; however, there was no difference in complications or mortality. Nonoperative therapy increased from 0% to 75% over time. Nonsurgical therapy was more common in referred cases (48% vs 30%) and in the >24 hours treatment group (46% vs 38%). Over the period of study, there were decreases in complications (50% to 33%) and LOS (18.5 to 8.5 days). Mortality for the entire series involved 3 patients (4%): 2 operative and 1 nonoperative. CONCLUSIONS:Results from our series indicate that referral to a tertiary care center is as important as treatment within 24 hours. An experienced surgical management team using a diversified approach, including selective application of nonoperative techniques, can expect to shorten LOS and limit complications and mortality.

BACKGROUND:Esophageal perforation is a morbid condition and remains a therapeutic challenge. We report the outcomes of a large institutional experience with esophageal perforation and identify risk factors for morbidity and mortality. METHODS:A retrospective analysis was conducted on 142 patients who presented with a thoracic or gastroesophageal junction esophageal perforation from 1995 to 2020. Baseline characteristics, operative or interventional strategies, and outcomes were analyzed by etiology of the perforation and management approach. Multivariable cox and logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors of mortality and morbidity. RESULTS:Overall, 109 (77%) patients underwent operative intervention, including 80 primary reinforced repairs and 21 esophagectomies and 33 (23%) underwent esophageal stenting. Stenting was more common in iatrogenic (27%) and malignant (64%) perforations. Patients who presented with a postemetic or iatrogenic perforation had similar 90-day mortality (16% and 16%) and composite morbidity (51% and 45%), whereas patients who presented with a malignant perforation had a 45% 90-day mortality and 45% composite morbidity. Risk factors for mortality included age >65 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.89 [1.02-3.26], P = 0.044) and a malignant perforation (HR 4.80 [1.31-17.48], P = 0.017). Risk factors for composite morbidity included pleural contamination (odds ratio [OR] 2.06 [1.39-4.43], P = 0.046) and sepsis (OR 3.26 [1.44-7.36], P = 0.005). Of the 33 patients who underwent stent placement, 67% were successfully managed with stenting alone and 30% required stent repositioning. CONCLUSIONS:Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after esophageal perforation include advanced age, pleural contamination, septic physiology, and malignant perforation. Primary reinforced repair remains a reasonable strategy for patients with an esophageal perforation from a benign etiology.

Background:Foreign body (FB) impaction accounts for 4% of emergency endoscopies in clinical practice. Flexible endoscopy (FE) is recommended as the first-line therapeutic option because it can be performed under sedation, is cost-effective, and is well tolerated. Rigid endoscopy (RE) under general anesthesia is less used but may be advantageous in some circumstances. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FE and RE in esophageal FB removal. Methods:PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted matching the terms "Rigid endoscopy AND Flexible endoscopy AND foreign bod*". Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using index and Cochrane test. Results:Five observational cohort studies, published between 1993 and 2015, matched the inclusion criteria. One thousand four hundred and two patients were included; FE was performed in 736 patients and RE in 666. Overall, 101 (7.2%) complications occurred. The most frequent complications were mucosal erosion (26.7%), mucosal edema (18.8%), and iatrogenic esophageal perforations (10.9%). Compared to FE, the estimated RE pooled success OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48-2.06;  = 1.00). The pooled OR of iatrogenic perforation, other complications, and overall complications were 2.87 (95% CI 0.96-8.61;  = 0.06), 1.09 (95% CI 0.38-3.18;  = 0.87), and 1.50 (95% CI 0.53-4.25;  = 0.44), respectively. There was no mortality. Conclusions:FE and RE are equally safe and effective for the removal of esophageal FB. To provide a tailored or crossover approach, patients should be managed in multidisciplinary centers where expertise in RE is also available. Formal training and certification in RE should probably be re-evaluated.