Minimally invasive surgical management of spontaneous esophageal perforation (Boerhaave’s syndrome)
Spontaneous esophageal perforation (Boerhaave’s syndrome) is a highly morbid condition traditionally associated with poor outcomes. The Pittsburgh perforation severity score (PSS) accurately predicts risk of morbidity, length of stay (LOS) and mortality. Operative management is indicated among patients with medium (3–5) or high (> 5) PSS; however, the role of minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain.
Consecutive patients presenting with Boerhaave’s syndrome with intermediate or high PSS managed via a thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach from 2012 to 2018 were reviewed. Demographics, clinical presentation, management, and outcomes were analyzed.
Ten patients (80% male) with a mean age of 61.3 years (range 37–81) were included. Two patients had intermediate and eight had high PSS (7.9 ± 2.8, range 4–12). The mean time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 27 ± 12 h and APACHE II score was 13.6 ± 4.9. Thoracoscopic debridement and primary repair was performed in eight cases, with two perforations repaired primarily over a T-tube. Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy was performed in all patients. Critical care LOS was 8.7 ± 6.8 days (range 3–26), while inpatient LOS was 23.1 ± 12.5 days (range 14–46). Mean comprehensive complications index was 42.1 ± 26.2, with grade IIIa and IV morbidity in 60% and 10%, respectively. One patient developed dehiscence at the primary repair, which was managed non-operatively. In-hospital and 90-day mortality was 10%.
Minimally invasive surgical management of spontaneous esophageal perforation with medium to high perforation severity scores is feasible and safe, with outcomes which compare favorably to the published literature.
KeywordsBoerhaave’s syndrome Esophageal perforation Morbidity Mortality Comprehensive complications index Pittsburgh perforation severity score
Compliance with ethical standards
Jessie A. Elliott, Louise Buckley, Mohamed Albagir, Antonios Athanasiou, and Thomas J Murphy have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Supplementary material 1—Thoracoscopic debridement and primary repair of spontaneous esophageal perforation [video file] (MP4 203200 kb)
- 5.Ali JT, Rice RD, David EA, Spicer JD, Dubose JJ, Bonavina L, Siboni S, O’Callaghan TA, Luo-Owen X, Harrison S, Ball CG, Bini J, Vercruysse GA, Skarupa D, Miller CC III, Estrera AL, Khalil KG (2017) Perforated esophageal intervention focus (PERF) study: a multi-center examination of contemporary treatment. Dis Esophagus 30:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Schweigert M, Sousa HS, Solymosi N, Yankulov A, Fernandez MJ, Beattie R, Dubecz A, Rabl C, Law S, Tong D, Petrov D, Schabitz A, Stadlhuber RJ, Gumpp J, Ofner D, McGuigan J, Costa-Maia J, Witzigmann H, Stein HJ (2016) Spotlight on esophageal perforation: a multinational study using the Pittsburgh esophageal perforation severity scoring system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 151:1002–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Veenhof AA, Sietses C, von Blomberg BM, van Hoogstraten IM, vd Pas MH, Meijerink WJ, vd Peet DL, vd Tol MP, Bonjer HJ, Cuesta MA (2011) The surgical stress response and postoperative immune function after laparoscopic or conventional total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: a randomized trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:53–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Kohl A, Rosenberg J, Bock D, Bisgaard T, Skullman S, Thornell A, Gehrman J, Angenete E, Haglind E (2018) Two-year results of the randomized clinical trial DILALA comparing laparoscopic lavage with resection as treatment for perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg 105(9):1128–1134CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Schultz JK, Wallon C, Blecic L, Forsmo HM, Folkesson J, Buchwald P, Korner H, Dahl FA, Oresland T, Yaqub S (2017) One-year results of the SCANDIV randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg 104:1382–1392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, Daams F, Roig Garcia J, Bonavina L, Rosman C, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, van der Peet DL (2017) Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial. Ann Surg 266:232–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F, Brigand C, Carrere N, Collet D, Doddoli C, Flamein R, Mabrut JY, Meunier B, Msika S, Perniceni T, Peschaud F, Prudhomme M, Triboulet JP, Mariette C (2011) Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial—the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer 11:310CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Douglas IS, Jaeschke R, Osborn TM, Nunnally ME, Townsend SR, Reinhart K, Kleinpell RM, Angus DC, Deutschman CS, Machado FR, Rubenfeld GD, Webb SA, Beale RJ, Vincent JL, Moreno R (2013) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med 41:580–637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Healy LA, Ryan A, Doyle SL, Bhuachalla EBN, Cushen S, Segurado R, Murphy T, Ravi N, Donohoe CL, Reynolds JV (2017) Does prolonged enteral feeding with supplemental omega-3 fatty acids impact on recovery post-esophagectomy: results of a randomized double-blind trial. Ann Surg 266(5):720–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling GE, D’Journo XB, Griffin SM, Holscher AH, Hofstetter WL, Jobe BA, Kitagawa Y, Kucharczuk JC, Law SY, Lerut TE, Maynard N, Pera M, Peters JH, Pramesh CS, Reynolds JV, Smithers BM, van Lanschot JJ (2015) International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: esophagectomy complications consensus group (ECCG). Ann Surg 262:286–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Pneumonia (Ventilator-associated [VAP] and non-ventilator-associated Pneumonia [PNEU]) Event 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/6pscVAPcurrent.pdf
- 32.Rahman NM, Maskell NA, West A, Teoh R, Arnold A, Mackinlay C, Peckham D, Davies CWH, Ali N, Kinnear W, Bentley A, Kahan BC, Wrightson JM, Davies HE, Hooper CE, Lee YCG, Hedley EL, Crosthwaite N, Choo L, Helm EJ, Gleeson FV, Nunn AJ, Davies RJO (2011) Intrapleural use of tissue plasminogen activator and DNase in pleural infection. N Engl J Med 365:518–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Franchetti Y, Catalano PJ, Swanson S, Sugarbaker DJ, De Hoyos A, Maddaus MA, Nguyen NT, Benson AB, Fernando HC (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study. Ann Surg 261:702–707CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 34.van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA, Kroese CC, HajMohammad N, Mook S, Vleggaar FP, BorelRinkes IHM, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R (2018) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269(4):621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Barbour AP, Cormack OM, Baker PJ, Hirst J, Krause L, Brosda S, Thomas JM, Blazeby JM, Thomson IG, Gotley DC, Smithers BM (2016) Long-term health-related quality of life following esophagectomy: a nonrandomized comparison of thoracoscopically assisted and open surgery. Ann Surg 265(6):1158–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Maas KW, Cuesta MA, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Roig J, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Gisbertz SS, Biere SS, van der Peet DL, Klinkenbijl JH, Hollmann MW, de Lange ES, Bonjer HJ (2015) Quality of life and late complications after minimally invasive compared to open esophagectomy: results of a randomized trial. World J Surg 39:1986–1993CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 37.Sanabria A, Villegas MI, Morales Uribe CH (2013) Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:Cd004778Google Scholar
- 38.Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, Leandro G, Montori G, Ceresoli M, Corbella D, Sartelli M, Sugrue M, Ansaloni L (2015) Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 18:196–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Schweigert M, Beattie R, Solymosi N, Booth K, Dubecz A, Muir A, Moskorz K, Stadlhuber RJ, Ofner D, McGuigan J, Stein HJ (2013) Endoscopic stent insertion versus primary operative management for spontaneous rupture of the esophagus (Boerhaave syndrome): an international study comparing the outcome. Am Surg 79:634–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.Oshikiri T, Yasuda T, Hasegawa H, Yamamoto M, Kanaji S, Yamashita K, Matsuda T, Sumi Y, Nakamura T, Fujino Y, Tominaga M, Suzuki S, Kakeji Y (2016) Short-term outcomes and one surgeon’s learning curve for thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed with the patient in the prone position. Surg Today 47(3):313–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar