EGS SO33 - Management Strategies and Outcomes of Non-Malignant Oesophageal Perforation at a Tertiary Care Hospital

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Oesophageal perforation is a life-threatening emergency that requires prompt and effective management. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of different management strategies—conservative, surgical, and endoscopic washout with stent insertion—for non-malignant oesophageal perforations at a specialist Upper GI unit in a tertiary care hospital. Method This is a retrospective study conducted over a 10-year period from 2012 at a specialist Upper GI Unit in a tertiary care hospital. All patients aged 18 and above who were referred to or admitted with oesophageal perforation were included, with exclusion of those with underlying oesophageal cancer. Data were collected from hospital records. Variables studied included age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), WHO performance status, site and size of oesophageal perforation, treatment modality (Conservative, Surgery, or Stent), type and size of stent used, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Data analysis was performed using SPSS v.25. Results Over 10 years, 72 cases of non-malignant oesophageal perforation were managed (M:F, 37:35, median age 62.5 years (range 20-86), median CCI 3). The causes of perforation were spontaneous (n=45, 62.5%), iatrogenic (n=22,30.6%), foreign body (n=4,5.6%), and post-corrosive intake (n=1,1.4%). Most perforations occurred in the distal oesophagus (n=52, 72.2%) with an average size of perforation of 3 ± 1.38cm. Management included surgery (n=43,59.7%), conservative treatment (n=22,30.6%), and stent insertion (n=7,9.7%). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 20.8% (n=15). Survival rates varied: 90.9% for conservative treatment, 79.1% for surgical management, and 57.1% for stenting; however, the differences were not statistically significant (p=0.134). Conclusion Oesophageal perforation is a life-threatening condition. This 10-year observational study assessing conservative, surgical, and stent treatments for non-malignant perforations confirms that survival rates varied among the different treatment groups. However, there was no statistically significant survival advantage observed. This underscores the importance of developing individualized management plans based on patient factors to improve outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.