Surgical management and prognostic factors in esophageal perforation caused by foreign body
- 45 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEsophageal 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
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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