TY - JOUR
T1 - Perforations of the Esophagus and Stomach
T2 - What Should I Do?
AU - Dimou, Francesca
AU - Velanovich, Vic
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2014, The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
PY - 2015/2
Y1 - 2015/2
N2 - Introduction: Esophageal and gastroduodenal perforations are relatively uncommon; however, they both can be potentially life-threatening. Esophageal perforations most commonly occur due to iatrogenic injury, forceful retching (Boerhaave’s syndrome), malignancy, foreign body ingestion, or caustic injury. Gastroduodenal perforations are most commonly due to peptic ulcer disease or malignancy. Pain and signs of sepsis are the most common presenting symptoms and signs.Methods: Determining the extent of critical illness and addressing hemodynamics and sepsis are the first priorities. Identifying the location and size of the perforation as well as extent of contamination is the next priorities. Although surgical intervention has been the mainstay of treatment, newer approaches have led to a heterogeneity of approaches.Conclusion: For esophageal perforation, observation, endoscopic, radiological, and surgical approaches may be appropriate. For gastroduodenal perforation, surgical approach is still the most appropriate, although a concomitant acid-reducing operation is usually not necessary. Despite these advances, mortality for both perforations can still be high. Sound judgment is necessary for optimal results.
AB - Introduction: Esophageal and gastroduodenal perforations are relatively uncommon; however, they both can be potentially life-threatening. Esophageal perforations most commonly occur due to iatrogenic injury, forceful retching (Boerhaave’s syndrome), malignancy, foreign body ingestion, or caustic injury. Gastroduodenal perforations are most commonly due to peptic ulcer disease or malignancy. Pain and signs of sepsis are the most common presenting symptoms and signs.Methods: Determining the extent of critical illness and addressing hemodynamics and sepsis are the first priorities. Identifying the location and size of the perforation as well as extent of contamination is the next priorities. Although surgical intervention has been the mainstay of treatment, newer approaches have led to a heterogeneity of approaches.Conclusion: For esophageal perforation, observation, endoscopic, radiological, and surgical approaches may be appropriate. For gastroduodenal perforation, surgical approach is still the most appropriate, although a concomitant acid-reducing operation is usually not necessary. Despite these advances, mortality for both perforations can still be high. Sound judgment is necessary for optimal results.
KW - Duodenal perforation
KW - Esophageal perforation
KW - Gastric perforation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925543468&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925543468&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11605-014-2702-2
DO - 10.1007/s11605-014-2702-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 25451730
AN - SCOPUS:84925543468
SN - 1091-255X
VL - 19
SP - 400
EP - 406
JO - Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
JF - Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
IS - 2
ER -