Introduction
Esophageal perforation is a rare condition with a high mortality rate. Often it has an iatrogenic origin, being caused by transesophageal echocardiography, different endoscopic and surgical procedures. Furthermore, there are other causes such as foreign body ingestion, tumor associated perforation and Boerhaave’s syndrome. Esophageal perforation can be difficult to diagnose since the clinical presentation is often unspecific. This can lead to a delay in appropriate treatment. Optimal management of this condition challenges clinicians in daily practice. Therefore, we present a monocentric retrospective study, evaluating our experience in treating esophageal perforations over more than a decade as a tertiary referral University Medical Center in Germany.
Aims & Methods
This study comprises the retrospective analysis of data from all patients treated for esophageal perforation in our clinic in the departments of general and visceral surgery and gastroenterology between 2012 and 2024. Only patients with confirmed esophageal perforation were included. Data was collected by means of a retrospective analysis of digital and analogous data archives as well as information from the physicians providing further treatment.
Results
A total of 78 cases (47 male, 31 female) of esophageal perforation were included. The leading cause was iatrogenic (n=45), consisting of endoscopic procedures (n=22), operative complications (n=11), TEE (n=6), diagnostic EGD (n=5) and one case of endotracheal intubation. The second most common cause of perforation was Boerhaave’s syndrome (n=23), followed by perforations associated with foreign body ingestion (n=5) or tumors of the esophagus (n=4). Traumatic perforations were rare (n=1). Most perforations occurred in the lower third of the esophagus (58 cases), 11 perforations were located in the mid esophagus and 9 in the upper third. Primary treatment consisted of direct surgical management in 26 cases (suture of the esophagus, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, definitive cervical esophagostomy, thoracic drainage, lavage), endoscopic therapy in 38 cases (Endo-VAC, stenting and application of OTSC or TTSC clips) and a conservative approach in 14 cases. Eventually a total of 48 patients underwent surgical treatment. Survival was poorest in spontaneous and tumor associated perforations (mean survival 22 and 23 months). Iatrogenic perforations showed an intermediate outcome. The best outcome was observed in perforations associated with foreign body ingestion (mean survival 50 months). In correlation with perforation location, the survival was best for perforations in the upper esophagus, followed by those in the lower esophagus, while lesions in the mid esophagus showed the worst outcome. Perforation associated death was recorded in 17 cases.
Conclusion
Esophageal perforations are a life-threatening event that require immediate and adequate treatment. Our analysis identified risk groups resulting in poorer survival: perforations in the mid esophagus, primary surgical treatment, advanced age. Within the last years, endoscopic techniques have reduced the need for surgical interventions. Nevertheless, surgical treatment remains the therapy of choice for patients not eligible for endoscopic treatment or after failure of endoscopic therapy. Our analysis emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinarity, close monitoring and continuous reassement of treatment strategy. Further investigation will help to improve the outcome via prospective studies or the establishment of a local or interregional database seem promising to underline suggestions derived from our analysis.