, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 188–193 | Cite as

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

  • Yiwei Huang
  • Tao Lu
  • Yu LiuEmail author
  • Cheng Zhan
  • Di Ge
  • Lijie Tan
  • Qun Wang
Original Article



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.


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.


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.


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.


Esophageal perforation Risk factors Surgical technology Prognosis 



This research was not supported by any external funding. We thank International Science Editing for editing this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical Statement

Our work conforms to the guidelines set forth in the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5), concerning Human and Animal Rights, and that they followed the policy concerning informed consent.

Conflict of interest

Yiwei Huang, Tao Lu, Yu Liu, Cheng Zhan, Di Ge, Lijie Tan, and Qun Wang declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Seo YD, Lin J, Chang AC, et al. Emergent esophagectomy for esophageal perforations: a safe option. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:905–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatia P, Fortin D, Inculet RI, Malthaner RA. Current concepts in the management of esophageal perforations: a twenty-seven year Canadian experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:209–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim AW, Liptay MJ, Snow N, Donahue P, Warren WH. Utility of silicone esophageal bypass stents in the management of delayed complex esophageal disruptions. Ann Thorac Surg. 1967;2008(85):1962–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schweigert M, Sousa HS, Solymosi N, et al. Spotlight on esophageal perforation: a multinational study using the Pittsburgh esophageal perforation severity scoring system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151:1002–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaker H, Elsayed H, Whittle I, Hussein S, Shackcloth M. The influence of the ‘golden 24-h rule’ on the prognosis of oesophageal perforation in the modern era. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38:216–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keeling WB, Miller DL, Lam GT, et al. Low mortality after treatment for esophageal perforation: a single-center experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90(1669–1673):1673.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cho JS, Kim YD, Kim JW, Seok H, Kim MS. Thoracoscopic primary esophageal repair in patients with Boerhaave’s syndrome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1552–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biancari F, Gudbjartsson T, Mennander A, et al. Treatment of esophageal perforation in octogenarians: a multicenter study. Dis Esophagus. 2014;27:715–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dai Y, Chopra SS, Kneif S, Hunerbein M. Management of esophageal anastomotic leaks, perforations, and fistulae with self-expanding plastic stents. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:1213–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vallbohmer D, Holscher AH, Holscher M, et al. Options in the management of esophageal perforation: analysis over a 12-year period. Dis Esophagus. 2010;23:185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiang J, Yu T, Zhang YF, Li JY, Yang L. Treatment of cervical esophageal perforation caused by foreign bodies. Dis Esophagus. 2012;25:590–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freeman RK, Van Woerkom JM, Vyverberg A, Ascioti AJ. Esophageal stent placement for the treatment of spontaneous esophageal perforations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:194–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freeman RK, Ascioti AJ, Dake M, Mahidhara RS. An analysis of esophageal stent placement for persistent leak after the operative repair of intrathoracic esophageal perforations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(1715–1719):1719–20.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abu-Daff S, Shamji F, Ivanovic J, et al. Esophagectomy in esophageal perforations: an analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glatz T, Marjanovic G, Kulemann B, et al. Management and outcome of esophageal stenting for spontaneous esophageal perforations. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30:1–6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Minnich DJ, Yu P, Bryant AS, Jarrar D, Cerfolio RJ. Management of thoracic esophageal perforations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40:931–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freeman RK, Ascioti AJ, Dake M, Mahidhara RS. An assessment of the optimal time for removal of esophageal stents used in the treatment of an esophageal anastomotic leak or perforation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:422–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Griffiths EA, Yap N, Poulter J, Hendrickse MT, Khurshid M. Thirty-four cases of esophageal perforation: the experience of a district general hospital in the UK. Dis Esophagus. 2009;22:616–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richardson JD. Management of esophageal perforations: the value of aggressive surgical treatment. Am J Surg. 2005;190:161–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang N, Razzouk AJ, Safavi A, et al. Delayed primary repair of intrathoracic esophageal perforation: is it safe? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;111(114–121):121–2.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seo YD, Lin J, Chang AC, et al. Emergent esophagectomy for esophageal perforations: a safe option. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:905–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Esophageal Society and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yiwei Huang
    • 1
  • Tao Lu
    • 1
  • Yu Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cheng Zhan
    • 1
  • Di Ge
    • 1
  • Lijie Tan
    • 1
  • Qun Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan HospitalFudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations