Surgical Management of Esophageal Perforation: Examining Trends in a Multi-Institutional Cohort

BackgroundEsophageal perforations historically are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and generally require emergent intervention. The influence of improved diagnostic and therapeutic modalities available in recent years on management has not been examined. This study examined the surgical treatments and outcomes of a modern cohort.MethodsPatients with esophageal perforation management in the 2005-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were stratified into three eras (2005-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2020). Surgical management was classified as primary repair, resection, diversion, or drainage alone based on procedure codes. The distribution of procedure use, morbidity, and mortality across eras was examined.ResultsSurgical management of 378 identified patients was primary repair (n=193,51%), drainage (n=89,24%), resection (n=70,18%), and diversion (n=26,7%). Thirty-day mortality in the cohort was 9.5% (n=36/378) and 268 patients (71%) had at least one complication. The median length of stay was 15 days. Both morbidity (Era 1 65% [n=42/60] versus Era 2 69% [n=92/131] versus Era 3 72% [n=135/187], p=0.3) and mortality (Era 1 11% [n=7/65] versus Era 2 9% [n=12/131] versus Era 3 10% [n=19/187], p=0.9) did not change significantly over the three defined eras. Treatment over time evolved such that primary repair was more frequently utilized (43% in Era 1 to 51% in Era 3) while diversion was less often performed (13% in Era 1 to 7% in Era 3) (p=0.009).ConclusionsEsophageal perforation management in recent years uses diversion less often but remains associated with significant morbidity and mortality.