title: Open surgery versus stent placement in failed primary surgical treatment of esophageal perforation - a single institutional experience.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Surgical treatment is an accepted method to manage esophageal perforation, but in many cases it may result in failure. This paper compares the efficacy of surgical treatment and stenting in patients after previous surgical intervention for esophageal perforation.
  
  
  METHODS
  A single-institution retrospective study was performed in a group of patients treated for esophageal perforation admitted to our centre from 2010 to 2015. Seventy eight patients (76.5%) with esophageal perforation received surgical treatment. In this group of patients, the mean time between perforation and treatment was 80.6 h (24-240 h). Spontaneous and iatrogenic perforation was observed in 33 (42.3%) and 45 (57.7%) patients, respectively. Partial esophageal resection was performed in 11 cases (14.1%). The perforation site was sutured in the remaining 67 patients (85.9%). Surgical treatment failed in 29 cases (37.2%).
  
  
  RESULTS
  In patients with failed previous surgical treatment, revision surgery was performed in 14 patients (48.3%) (group A), and a large-diameter self-expandable stent was implanted in 15 cases (51.7%) (group B). Perforation in the thoracic and distal esophagus was observed in 5 (35.7%) and 9 (64.3%) patients from group A, and in 7 (46.7%) and 8 (53.3%) patients from group B, respectively. The mean intubation time in both groups was 30.3 and 12.5 days (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean daily drainage within five days after the intervention was 350 mL in group A, and 500 mL in group B (p < 0.02). In both groups hospitalisation time was 41.5 and 19.4 days, respectively (p < 0.001). Six patients died (42.8%) following revision surgery, and 2 (13.3%) patients died after stent implantation (p < 0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Intubation time, hospitalization, and the rate of fatal complications in patients who underwent stent implantations were significantly lower compared to reoperated patients; however, the rate of prolonged drainage was lower in patients who underwent revision surgery. In conclusion, stent implantation is a significantly superior method to treat persistent leakage following failure of previous surgical treatment.
authors.affiliation: a Department of Thoracic Surgery , National Research Institute of Chest Diseases , Warsaw , Poland ;
authors.forename: Dariusz
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Dziedzic
authors.affiliation: b Department of Anesthesiology , National Research Institute of Chest Diseases , Warsaw , Poland ;
authors.forename: Jacek
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Prokopowicz
authors.affiliation: c Department of Thoracic Surgery , National Research Institute of Chest Diseases , Warsaw , Poland.
authors.forename: Tadeusz
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Orlowski
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000714:Anastomosis, Surgical; D004322:Drainage; D004939:Esophageal Perforation / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery*; D004947:Esophagus / Q000601:surgery; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011044:Poland; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D012086:Reoperation / Q000379:methods*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D015607:Stents; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Esophageal perforation; esophageal repair; stent placement