Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan 7;35(1):doab039.
doi: 10.1093/dote/doab039.

Management and outcomes of esophageal perforation

Andrea L Axtell  1 , Henning A Gaissert  1 , Christopher R Morse  1 , Akash Premkumar  2 , Lana Schumacher  1 , Ashok Muniappan  1 , Harald Ott  1 , James S Allan  1 , Michael Lanuti  1 , Douglas J Mathisen  1 , Cameron D Wright  1
Affiliations

Management and outcomes of esophageal perforation

Andrea L Axtell et al. Dis Esophagus. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: esophageal injury; esophageal perforation; surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources