Thoracic Esophageal Perforations
The authors review their experience with thoracic esophageal perforation at Inova Fairfax Hospital, June 1, 1988, to March 1, 2009. With the exception of 6 patients with occult perforation, all of whom survived with nonoperative therapy, aggressive surgical intervention was the standard approach. Am...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American surgeon 2010-12, Vol.76 (12), p.1355-1362 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1362 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 1355 |
container_title | The American surgeon |
container_volume | 76 |
creator | KIERNAN, Paul D KHANDHAR, Sandeep J FORTES, Daniel L. C SHERIDAN, Michael J HETRICK, Vivian |
description | The authors review their experience with thoracic esophageal perforation at Inova Fairfax Hospital, June 1, 1988, to March 1, 2009. With the exception of 6 patients with occult perforation, all of whom survived with nonoperative therapy, aggressive surgical intervention was the standard approach. Among patients treated aggressively with surgery within 24 hours of perforation, hospital survival was 97 per cent versus 89 per cent for patients treated aggressively surgically after 24 hours. In the absence of phlegmon, implacable obstruction, or delay, primary repair resulted in 100 per cent survival. Where phlegmon or resolute obstruction existed, resection and reconstruction resulted in 96 per cent survival. Even when patients were deemed too ill to undergo surgery, cervical diversion was 100 per cent effective in eradicating continuing leak and achieved 89 per cent survival. Endoesophageal stenting was applied as primary treatment or secondarily such as where leak complicated primary repair. When stenting was used as the initial and primary treatment modality, survival was 88 per cent. Targeted drainage was helpful on occasion as an adjunct to initial therapies. Comfort measures alone were appropriate when clinical circumstances merited no effort at resuscitation. Finally, survivors were asked to self-categorize their ability to swallow; 95 per cent responded good to excellent. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/000313481007601220 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_847597256</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>847597256</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-3d9b41d89d6c0f1fb1ce27a76631531b4a388443030061c3b3b66c8d654ab3453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkM1LAzEQxYMoWqv_gAcpgnhazWTytUcp9QMKeqjnJZvN2i3bTU26B_97s7Qq6GmY4fce8x4hF0BvAZS6o5QiINdAqZIUGKMHZARCiCzXDA_JaACygTghpzGu0sqlgGNywoBJgTwfkcli6YOxjZ3Mot8szbsz7eTVhTpdt43v4hk5qk0b3fl-jsnbw2wxfcrmL4_P0_t5ZjnFbYZVXnKodF5JS2uoS7COKaOkRBAIJTeoNedIkVIJFksspbS6koKbErnAMbnZ-W6C_-hd3BbrJlrXtqZzvo-F5krkigmZyKs_5Mr3oUvPFZoxpcSQbUzYDrLBxxhcXWxCszbhswBaDO0V_9tLosu9c1-uXfUj-a4rAdd7wERr2jqYzjbxl0OZ5ykLfgEj23L6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>822775265</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Thoracic Esophageal Perforations</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>KIERNAN, Paul D ; KHANDHAR, Sandeep J ; FORTES, Daniel L. C ; SHERIDAN, Michael J ; HETRICK, Vivian</creator><creatorcontrib>KIERNAN, Paul D ; KHANDHAR, Sandeep J ; FORTES, Daniel L. C ; SHERIDAN, Michael J ; HETRICK, Vivian</creatorcontrib><description>The authors review their experience with thoracic esophageal perforation at Inova Fairfax Hospital, June 1, 1988, to March 1, 2009. With the exception of 6 patients with occult perforation, all of whom survived with nonoperative therapy, aggressive surgical intervention was the standard approach. Among patients treated aggressively with surgery within 24 hours of perforation, hospital survival was 97 per cent versus 89 per cent for patients treated aggressively surgically after 24 hours. In the absence of phlegmon, implacable obstruction, or delay, primary repair resulted in 100 per cent survival. Where phlegmon or resolute obstruction existed, resection and reconstruction resulted in 96 per cent survival. Even when patients were deemed too ill to undergo surgery, cervical diversion was 100 per cent effective in eradicating continuing leak and achieved 89 per cent survival. Endoesophageal stenting was applied as primary treatment or secondarily such as where leak complicated primary repair. When stenting was used as the initial and primary treatment modality, survival was 88 per cent. Targeted drainage was helpful on occasion as an adjunct to initial therapies. Comfort measures alone were appropriate when clinical circumstances merited no effort at resuscitation. Finally, survivors were asked to self-categorize their ability to swallow; 95 per cent responded good to excellent.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-1348</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1555-9823</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/000313481007601220</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21265349</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AMSUAW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Atlanta, GA: Southeastern Surgical Congress</publisher><subject>Aged ; Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cancer ; Cancer therapies ; Cellulitis - epidemiology ; Comorbidity ; Deglutition ; Esophageal Perforation - epidemiology ; Esophageal Perforation - mortality ; Esophageal Perforation - surgery ; Esophageal Perforation - therapy ; Esophagectomy ; Female ; General aspects ; Hospital Mortality ; Hospitalization ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Radiation therapy ; Recovery of Function ; Retrospective Studies ; Stents ; Survival Analysis</subject><ispartof>The American surgeon, 2010-12, Vol.76 (12), p.1355-1362</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Southeastern Surgical Congress Dec 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-3d9b41d89d6c0f1fb1ce27a76631531b4a388443030061c3b3b66c8d654ab3453</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-3d9b41d89d6c0f1fb1ce27a76631531b4a388443030061c3b3b66c8d654ab3453</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=23699453$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21265349$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>KIERNAN, Paul D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KHANDHAR, Sandeep J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FORTES, Daniel L. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHERIDAN, Michael J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HETRICK, Vivian</creatorcontrib><title>Thoracic Esophageal Perforations</title><title>The American surgeon</title><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><description>The authors review their experience with thoracic esophageal perforation at Inova Fairfax Hospital, June 1, 1988, to March 1, 2009. With the exception of 6 patients with occult perforation, all of whom survived with nonoperative therapy, aggressive surgical intervention was the standard approach. Among patients treated aggressively with surgery within 24 hours of perforation, hospital survival was 97 per cent versus 89 per cent for patients treated aggressively surgically after 24 hours. In the absence of phlegmon, implacable obstruction, or delay, primary repair resulted in 100 per cent survival. Where phlegmon or resolute obstruction existed, resection and reconstruction resulted in 96 per cent survival. Even when patients were deemed too ill to undergo surgery, cervical diversion was 100 per cent effective in eradicating continuing leak and achieved 89 per cent survival. Endoesophageal stenting was applied as primary treatment or secondarily such as where leak complicated primary repair. When stenting was used as the initial and primary treatment modality, survival was 88 per cent. Targeted drainage was helpful on occasion as an adjunct to initial therapies. Comfort measures alone were appropriate when clinical circumstances merited no effort at resuscitation. Finally, survivors were asked to self-categorize their ability to swallow; 95 per cent responded good to excellent.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Cellulitis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Comorbidity</subject><subject>Deglutition</subject><subject>Esophageal Perforation - epidemiology</subject><subject>Esophageal Perforation - mortality</subject><subject>Esophageal Perforation - surgery</subject><subject>Esophageal Perforation - therapy</subject><subject>Esophagectomy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Hospital Mortality</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Recovery of Function</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><issn>0003-1348</issn><issn>1555-9823</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNplkM1LAzEQxYMoWqv_gAcpgnhazWTytUcp9QMKeqjnJZvN2i3bTU26B_97s7Qq6GmY4fce8x4hF0BvAZS6o5QiINdAqZIUGKMHZARCiCzXDA_JaACygTghpzGu0sqlgGNywoBJgTwfkcli6YOxjZ3Mot8szbsz7eTVhTpdt43v4hk5qk0b3fl-jsnbw2wxfcrmL4_P0_t5ZjnFbYZVXnKodF5JS2uoS7COKaOkRBAIJTeoNedIkVIJFksspbS6koKbErnAMbnZ-W6C_-hd3BbrJlrXtqZzvo-F5krkigmZyKs_5Mr3oUvPFZoxpcSQbUzYDrLBxxhcXWxCszbhswBaDO0V_9tLosu9c1-uXfUj-a4rAdd7wERr2jqYzjbxl0OZ5ykLfgEj23L6</recordid><startdate>20101201</startdate><enddate>20101201</enddate><creator>KIERNAN, Paul D</creator><creator>KHANDHAR, Sandeep J</creator><creator>FORTES, Daniel L. C</creator><creator>SHERIDAN, Michael J</creator><creator>HETRICK, Vivian</creator><general>Southeastern Surgical Congress</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20101201</creationdate><title>Thoracic Esophageal Perforations</title><author>KIERNAN, Paul D ; KHANDHAR, Sandeep J ; FORTES, Daniel L. C ; SHERIDAN, Michael J ; HETRICK, Vivian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-3d9b41d89d6c0f1fb1ce27a76631531b4a388443030061c3b3b66c8d654ab3453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Cellulitis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Comorbidity</topic><topic>Deglutition</topic><topic>Esophageal Perforation - epidemiology</topic><topic>Esophageal Perforation - mortality</topic><topic>Esophageal Perforation - surgery</topic><topic>Esophageal Perforation - therapy</topic><topic>Esophagectomy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Hospital Mortality</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Recovery of Function</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>KIERNAN, Paul D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KHANDHAR, Sandeep J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FORTES, Daniel L. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHERIDAN, Michael J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HETRICK, Vivian</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>KIERNAN, Paul D</au><au>KHANDHAR, Sandeep J</au><au>FORTES, Daniel L. C</au><au>SHERIDAN, Michael J</au><au>HETRICK, Vivian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Thoracic Esophageal Perforations</atitle><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><date>2010-12-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1355</spage><epage>1362</epage><pages>1355-1362</pages><issn>0003-1348</issn><eissn>1555-9823</eissn><coden>AMSUAW</coden><abstract>The authors review their experience with thoracic esophageal perforation at Inova Fairfax Hospital, June 1, 1988, to March 1, 2009. With the exception of 6 patients with occult perforation, all of whom survived with nonoperative therapy, aggressive surgical intervention was the standard approach. Among patients treated aggressively with surgery within 24 hours of perforation, hospital survival was 97 per cent versus 89 per cent for patients treated aggressively surgically after 24 hours. In the absence of phlegmon, implacable obstruction, or delay, primary repair resulted in 100 per cent survival. Where phlegmon or resolute obstruction existed, resection and reconstruction resulted in 96 per cent survival. Even when patients were deemed too ill to undergo surgery, cervical diversion was 100 per cent effective in eradicating continuing leak and achieved 89 per cent survival. Endoesophageal stenting was applied as primary treatment or secondarily such as where leak complicated primary repair. When stenting was used as the initial and primary treatment modality, survival was 88 per cent. Targeted drainage was helpful on occasion as an adjunct to initial therapies. Comfort measures alone were appropriate when clinical circumstances merited no effort at resuscitation. Finally, survivors were asked to self-categorize their ability to swallow; 95 per cent responded good to excellent.</abstract><cop>Atlanta, GA</cop><pub>Southeastern Surgical Congress</pub><pmid>21265349</pmid><doi>10.1177/000313481007601220</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-1348 |
ispartof | The American surgeon, 2010-12, Vol.76 (12), p.1355-1362 |
issn | 0003-1348 1555-9823 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_847597256 |
source | MEDLINE; SAGE Complete A-Z List |
subjects | Aged Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology Biological and medical sciences Cancer Cancer therapies Cellulitis - epidemiology Comorbidity Deglutition Esophageal Perforation - epidemiology Esophageal Perforation - mortality Esophageal Perforation - surgery Esophageal Perforation - therapy Esophagectomy Female General aspects Hospital Mortality Hospitalization Hospitals Humans Length of Stay Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Mortality Radiation therapy Recovery of Function Retrospective Studies Stents Survival Analysis |
title | Thoracic Esophageal Perforations |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T15%3A18%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Thoracic%20Esophageal%20Perforations&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20surgeon&rft.au=KIERNAN,%20Paul%20D&rft.date=2010-12-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1355&rft.epage=1362&rft.pages=1355-1362&rft.issn=0003-1348&rft.eissn=1555-9823&rft.coden=AMSUAW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/000313481007601220&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E847597256%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=822775265&rft_id=info:pmid/21265349&rfr_iscdi=true |