Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Esophageal perforation Management

5,469 views

Published on

Esophageal perforation
case presentation and management

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Login to see the comments

Esophageal perforation Management

  1. 1. CASE PRESENTATION dr.basit@live.com
  2. 2. PRESENTATION • XYZ • 40 Y • Female dr.basit@live.com
  3. 3. PRESENTATION • Retrosternal chest pain • Dysphagia dr.basit@live.com
  4. 4. PAST HISTORY • APD dr.basit@live.com
  5. 5. EXAMINATION • Middle aged lady sitting in bed, well oriented in time, place and person • Vitals • Pulse = 90/min • B.P = 120/70 mmHg • R.R = 18/min • Temp = AF dr.basit@live.com
  6. 6. EXAMINATION • Abdomen • NAD • Chest • NAD • CVS • NADdr.basit@live.com
  7. 7. INVESTIGATIONS • Baseline labs • Normal • C-XR • Normal • ECG • Normal dr.basit@live.com
  8. 8. RIGID ESOPHAGOSCOPY • Impacted meat bolus • Patient developed dyspnea and central chest pain • Suspicion of iatrogenic perforation • Shifted to ICU dr.basit@live.com
  9. 9. • ECG • Normal • C-XR • Right pleural effusion dr.basit@live.com
  10. 10. TUBE THORACOSTOMY • Pleural fluid with food debris • Shortness of breath improved but tachycardia worsened (Pulse 110/min) • Low grade fever dr.basit@live.com
  11. 11. ICU CARE • NPO • I/V fluid resuscitation • Broad spectrum antibiotics • Vital monitoring • Blood group dr.basit@live.com
  12. 12. • 2 days history of food impaction • Patient was not NPO • Rigid esophagoscopy (Emergency) • Strong suspicion of perforation during esophagoscopy dr.basit@live.com
  13. 13. • High load perforation • Patient developed pleural effusion • Food debris and slough in chest drain • Worsening tachycardia • Low grade fever dr.basit@live.com
  14. 14. RIGHT THORACOTOMY AND ESOPHAGEAL REPAIR • Left lateral position • Chest opened through 6th ICS • Lung retracted forward • Right Pleural cavity full of dirty fluid, food debris and slough • All material aspirated and cavity thoroughly lavageddr.basit@live.com
  15. 15. RIGHT THORACOTOMY AND ESOPHAGEAL REPAIR • 2 cm longitudinal perforation was found at junction of middle and lower 3rd of esophagus • Margins refreshed • Nasogastric tube passed and advanced beyond perforation under vision dr.basit@live.com
  16. 16. RIGHT THORACOTOMY AND ESOPHAGEAL REPAIR • Mucosa closed with interrupted sutures • Muscularis closed with interrupted sutures • Cavity washed with N. Saline • Chest drain placed and attached to underwater seal dr.basit@live.com
  17. 17. POST OP MANAGEMENT • Managed in ICU • Recovery uneventful • NPO • I/V fluids dr.basit@live.com
  18. 18. POST OP MANAGEMENT • I/V antibiotics • Parenteral nutrition • Vitals and I/O record • Chest tube care dr.basit@live.com
  19. 19. POST OP MANAGEMENT • Gastrografin esophagogram performed on 11th POD • Oral sips started on 12th POD • Patient developed SSI (MRSA) • Chest drain removed on 20th POD dr.basit@live.com
  20. 20. ESOPHAGEAL PERFORATION dr.basit@live.com
  21. 21. dr.basit@live.com
  22. 22. ANATOMY • Three anatomical points of narrowing • The cricopharyngeus muscle • The broncho-aortic constriction • The esophagogastric junction dr.basit@live.com
  23. 23. dr.basit@live.com
  24. 24. ETIOLOGY • Increased intraluminal pressure at the anatomic sites of narrowing, as well as sites narrowed by a malignancy, foreign body, or physiologic dysfunction dr.basit@live.com
  25. 25. ETIOLOGY • More than one half of all esophageal perforations are iatrogenic and most of these occur during endoscopy Merchea A, Cullinane DC, Sawyer MD, et al. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy-associated gastrointestinal perforations: a single-center experience. Surgery 2010; 148:876. dr.basit@live.com
  26. 26. ETIOLOGY Percentage Spontaneous perforation (Boerhaave’s Syndrome) 15 % Foreign body ingestion 12 % Trauma 09 % Intra-operative injury 02 % Malignancy 01 % Brinster CJ, Singhal S, Lee L, et al. Evolving options in the management of esophageal perforation. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 77:1475. dr.basit@live.com
  27. 27. The estimated risk of esophageal perforation Diagnostic endoscopy with a flexible endoscope 0.03 % Diagnostic endoscopy with a rigid endoscope 0.11 % Stricture dilation 0.09 – 2.2 % Sclerotherapy 1 -5 % Pneumatic dilation for achalasia 2 – 6 % Chirica M, Champault A, Dray X, et al. Esophageal perforations. J Visc Surg 2010; 147:e117. dr.basit@live.com
  28. 28. RISK FACTORS • Malignant stricture • Severe esophagitis • Prior radiation therapy • History of caustic ingestion Hernandez LV, Jacobson JW, Harris MS, Hernandez LJ. Comparison among the perforation rates of Maloney, balloon, and savary dilation of esophageal strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51:460. dr.basit@live.com
  29. 29. RISK FACTORS • Eosinophilic esophagitis • Complex (tortuous) or long strictures • Presence of esophageal diverticula • Inexperienced operator • A large hiatal hernia Hernandez LV, Jacobson JW, Harris MS, Hernandez LJ. Comparison among the perforation rates of Maloney, balloon, and savary dilation of esophageal strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51:460. dr.basit@live.com
  30. 30. • Use of high inflation pressures with balloon dilation • A history of previous esophageal perforation • A history of prior esophageal surgery (such as for trauma or a congenital abnormality) RISK FACTORS Hernandez LV, Jacobson JW, Harris MS, Hernandez LJ. Comparison among the perforation rates of Maloney, balloon, and savary dilation of esophageal strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51:460. dr.basit@live.com
  31. 31. PRESENTATION • The clinical features of esophageal perforation depend upon the location of the perforation, degree of leakage, and the duration since the injury. dr.basit@live.com
  32. 32. PRESENTATION • Cervical perforation • Neck pain • Tenderness over sternocleidomastoid • Dysphonia • Hoarseness • Cervical subcutaneous emphysema dr.basit@live.com
  33. 33. PRESENTATION • Intra-thoracic perforation • Chest, back, or epigastric pain • Dysphagia • Odynophagia • Dyspnea • Hematemesis • Cyanosisdr.basit@live.com
  34. 34. • Intra-abdominal perforation • Epigastric, chest pain • Hematemesis • Epigastric tenderness • Pneumoperitonium PRESENTATION dr.basit@live.com
  35. 35. DIAGNOSIS • Clinical features • Diagnostic tests • Thoracic and cervical radiographs • Contrast esophagography • Computerized tomography dr.basit@live.com
  36. 36. MANAGEMENT dr.basit@live.com
  37. 37. •Surgical emergency de Schipper JP, Pull ter Gunne AF, Oostvogel HJ, van Laarhoven CJ. Spontaneous rupture of the oesophagus: Boerhaave's syndrome in 2008. Literature review and treatment algorithm. Dig Surg 2009; 26:1. dr.basit@live.com
  38. 38. NATURAL HISTORY • Perforation  Mediastinitis  Sepsis  Multiorgan Failure  Death dr.basit@live.com
  39. 39. INITIAL MANAGEMENT • NPO • Fluid resuscitation • Broad spectrum I/V antibiotics • Antifungal coverage ( in selected cases) • ICU care • Preparation for operative management dr.basit@live.com
  40. 40. PRINCIPLES OF SURGICAL MANAGEMENT • Primary repair of the perforation site is the optimal procedure. dr.basit@live.com
  41. 41. PRINCIPLES OF SURGICAL MANAGEMENT • Exceptions to performing a primary repair • Cervical perforation that cannot be accessed but can be drained • Diffuse mediastinal necrosis • Perforation too large for the esophagus to be re-approximated • Esophageal malignancy • Pre-existing end-stage benign esophageal disease (eg, achalasia) • The patient is clinically unstable Wright CD, Mathisen DJ, Wain JC, et al. Reinforced primary repair of thoracic esophageal perforation. Ann Thorac Surg 1995; 60:245. dr.basit@live.com
  42. 42. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR ESOPHAGEAL REPAIR • Devitalized tissue is debrided from the perforation site. • The muscular layer is incised longitudinally along the muscle fibers superior and inferior to the perforation to expose the entire extent of the mucosal injury. • The mucosa is closed in two layers ( mucosa/sub mucosa and muscularis) with interrupted absorbable suturesdr.basit@live.com
  43. 43. dr.basit@live.com
  44. 44. CERVICAL PERFORATION • More easily treated • Primary repair is performed if the perforation can be clearly visualized and there is no distal obstruction. • Otherwise, drainage of the perforation is adequate to control the leak since the anatomic structures of the neck typically confine extraluminal contamination to a limited space and thereby enhance spontaneous healing. dr.basit@live.com
  45. 45. dr.basit@live.com
  46. 46. dr.basit@live.com
  47. 47. THORACIC ESOPHAGEAL PERFORATION • Mid-esophageal perforation is approached through a right thoracotomy at the sixth or seventh intercostal space. • Distal esophageal perforation is approached through a left thoracotomy at the seventh or eighth intercostal space dr.basit@live.com
  48. 48. dr.basit@live.com
  49. 49. dr.basit@live.com
  50. 50. dr.basit@live.com
  51. 51. dr.basit@live.com
  52. 52. ABDOMINAL ESOPHAGEAL PERFORATION • Laparotomy is the preferred approach. • General principles for the management of an intra- abdominal esophageal perforation are the same. dr.basit@live.com
  53. 53. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT • Nutritional support is necessary until oral feedings can be initiated and effectively sustained. • The patient is maintained on intravenous broad spectrum antibiotics typically for 7 to 10 days. dr.basit@live.com
  54. 54. • Contrast esophagogram is obtained on 7th POD if the patient is clinically stable. • Drains remain in place until patient is tolerating oral feedings and without clinical evidence of a leak. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT dr.basit@live.com
  55. 55. ALTERNATIVES TO PRIMARY SURGICAL REPAIR • Drainage • Diversion • Endoscopic stent placement • Esophagectomy dr.basit@live.com
  56. 56. DRAINAGE • Surgical drainage as the sole operative management is reserved for perforations of the cervical esophagus when the perforation site cannot be completely visualized and when there is no distal obstruction. • T-tube may be inserted into the perforation to create a controlled fistula when a patient cannot tolerate more extensive surgery. Fürst H, Hartl WH, Löhe F, Schildberg FW. Colon interposition for esophageal replacement: an alternative technique based on the use of the right colon. Ann Surg 2000; 231:173. dr.basit@live.com
  57. 57. DIVERSION • The patient is unstable • The defect is large due to tissue destruction from contamination • Pre-existing esophageal disease is present dr.basit@live.com
  58. 58. DIVERSION • The goals • Control and drain extraluminal contamination • Divert the esophagus proximally with a cervical esophagostomy • Resection of the remaining esophagus dr.basit@live.com
  59. 59. • The goals • Obtain gastric diversion with a gastrostomy tube and feeding tube access with a jejunostomy • Close the diaphragmatic hiatus DIVERSION dr.basit@live.com
  60. 60. dr.basit@live.com
  61. 61. dr.basit@live.com
  62. 62. dr.basit@live.com
  63. 63. ENDOSCOPIC STENT PLACEMENT • May be appropriate for patients • Extensive comorbidities • Advanced mediastinal sepsis • Large esophageal defects • Inability to tolerate more extensive surgery. dr.basit@live.com
  64. 64. ESOPHAGECTOMY • A primary repair alone of an esophageal perforation proximal to untreated achalasia, an undilatable stricture, or a malignancy should not be performed. dr.basit@live.com
  65. 65. OUTCOMES FOLLOWING OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT • The principal variables associated with mortality • Delay in diagnosis • Type of repair • Location of perforation • Etiology of the perforation dr.basit@live.com
  66. 66. PROGNOSTIC VARIABLES FOR MORTALITY PERCENTAGE Etiology (n = 431) Spontaneous 36 Iatrogenic 19 Traumatic 7 Location (n = 397) Cervical 6 Thoracic 27 Abdominal 21 Time to diagnosis (n = 396) <24 hrs 14 >24 hrs 27 Brinster CJ, Singhal S, Lee L, et al. Evolving options in the management of esophageal perforation. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 77:1475. dr.basit@live.com
  67. 67. NON-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT • Diagnosed quickly • Less extraluminal contamination • Cervical perforation is most commonly considered for nonoperative management dr.basit@live.com
  68. 68. NON-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT • NPO • I/V fluids • Broad spectrum antibiotics • Surgical intervention if patient deteriorates dr.basit@live.com
  69. 69. SUMMARY • Prompt diagnosis and management is critical to minimizing mortality. • The mortality rate following operative management of an esophageal perforation is dependent on location of the perforation. dr.basit@live.com
  70. 70. SUMMARY • A primary repair is the gold standard of care • Drainage alone should only be performed for perforation of the cervical esophagus when the perforation cannot be visualized and when there is no distal obstruction. dr.basit@live.com
  71. 71. SUMMARY • Diversion is reserved for patients who present with clinical instability and more extensive operative procedure is not possible or when extensive esophageal damage precludes a primary repair. • Esophageal stents may be appropriate for patients with extensive comorbidities, advanced mediastinal sepsis, or large esophageal defects and the patient’s inability to tolerate more extensive surgery. dr.basit@live.com
  72. 72. SUMMARY • Esophagectomy should be performed when the patient presents with malignancy, extensive esophageal damage that precludes repair, or end-stage benign esophageal disease. dr.basit@live.com
  73. 73. • Non-operative management should be reserved for clinically stable patients with no evidence of systemic inflammation, expediently diagnosed perforations, and no spillage of mediastinum, pleura or peritoneum. SUMMARY dr.basit@live.com

×