Incidence
It is highly difficult to determine the true incidence
of esophageal injuries. Whilst the most common cause
of esophageal injuries was spontaneous, iatrogenic
injuries have taken the first place as therapeutic
interventions are becoming increasingly more
common. While the risk of esophageal injury is
0.018-0.003% in flexible endoscopies, it is 0.11% for
rigid esophagoscopes, and it can be up to 10-15% if
therapeutic interventions are considered.[2]
Etiology
Esophageal injuries can be divided into two groups,
intraluminal and extraluminal. Factors involved in the
etiology of esophageal injuries are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Etiology of esophageal injury
Clinical Findings
Initially, clinical findings of esophageal injuries are
obscure, and they usually become evident after 24 hours.
In the initial hours of perforation, unless there is an
accompanying complication such as pneumothorax or
subcutaneous emphysema, the physical examination
might be without any pathology. This is particularly
more common in patients with iatrogenic perforation
with no oral intake. In case of oral intake hours, days
after the perforation, the patient may present with signs
of sepsis.
Symptoms and physical examination findings vary based on the cause, localization and time of occurrence of the perforation. The most frequent symptoms are pain, fever, dysphagia, dyspnea and subcutaneous emphysema. In thoracic perforation, mediastinal emphysema is in the forefront, and subcutaneous emphysema is detected in 30% of the cases.[2,3] While pain is the most common symptom, it is non-specific. While fever points to a possible systemic inflammatory response and a possible onset of infection, it is not specific. A rapid rise in and high levels of fever are indicators of toxic progression and seen after mediastinal perforation. Spontaneous rupture of the esophageal often presents with severe chest pain, dyspnea, hematemesis, nausea, sweating and rigors.[2]
Diagnosis
Early diagnosis of esophageal perforation is
established by determination of clinical findings and
radiological confirmation of these findings. Direct X-ray
provides important clues for the diagnosis of esophageal
perforation in 70-90% of the cases.[2,4] Signs such
as hydrothorax, pneumothorax, hydropneumothorax,
pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema,
mediastinal dilation, subdiaphragmatic air, foreign
matter, and retrotracheal dilation can be detected.
Mediastinal emphysema is present in approximately
half of esophageal perforations. Hydropneumothorax
is detected in one quarter of the cases.[5,6]
Esophagography is necessary in all cases of esophageal perforation to confirm diagnosis, to localize perforation and for treatment. In cases of perforation in lower esophageal section secondary to instrumentation, contrasting agent is frequently seen to extravasate the pleural space or mediastinum. Following water-soluble contrast esophagography, if there are still suspicions or exact anatomic localization cannot be obtained, the procedure can be repeated with barium. However, many surgeons are worried of the extravasation of barium into thorax. The use of water-soluble agents can detect 75% of thoracic perforations.[7]
Tomographic assessment using contrasting agent is another option for diagnosis. Pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema, mediastinal dilation, abscess cavities, lesion level and, if present, foreign matter can be seen in computed tomography (CT). In some cases, CT may even detect very small extravasations of contrasting agent which cannot be detected by standard X-rays. Emphysematous tissue planes and any emerging abscess can be clearly demonstrated by CT. Additionally, it helps to detect the vertical invasion of an infectious process in the mediastinum.[4,8]
The gold standard diagnosis of rupture is by visualization by endoscopy. Both the level of the rupture and accompanying diseases are detected, and the treatment method is decided by esophagoscopy. However, the use of endoscopy in the diagnosis of esophageal perforation is controversial. Small perforations might be missed even by experienced endoscopists. Also, entering into the laceration area by endoscope may enlarge the perforation even more, and additional contamination may occur.[6]
The Goals of Treatment
There are two basic goals in the treatment of
perforation. The first is the restoration of the esophageal
lumen. The second is the control of extraluminal
contamination to prevent sepsis. In addition, proper
hemodynamic monitorization, support and systemic
antibiotic therapy are essential.
The Choice of Treatment
The successful completion of the treatment of
esophageal perforation is associated with several factors
including the time period elapsed between rupture and
diagnosis, the place and size of the rupture, the degree
of contamination, and the general status of the patient
In fact, the period elapsed from perforation to diagnosis
is the most important factor affecting the outcome of
esophageal perforation.[9] As there is no single strategy
to sufficiently overcome many of these conditions, the
optimal treatment of perforation is unclear.
Conventional treatment of thoracic and abdominal perforation is by primary repair of the perforation with an emergency surgical approach in cases without underlying esophageal pathology or long-term inflammation. While there is data recommending the early repair of perforation, persistent leak occurs and additional esophageal interventions might be necessary in approximately 30% of repairs.[9]
Operative Treatment
For many years, it was accepted that aggressive
surgical approach is mandatory for the treatment of
esophageal perforation. These operative approaches
are drainage only, decortication and drainage, primary
repair with or without tissue aid, controlled fistula
formation with T-tube, esophageal resection or
esophageal exclusion.[10] The choice of the operative
approach is based on the hemodynamic status of the
patient, the presence of coexisting pathologies, and
the suitability of esophageal muscle and mucosa layer
for primary repair. While many authors advocate the
repair of the perforation area with supportive tissue
in early stages, primary repair was not recommended
in cases who were admitted later on in the disease
process. In many series and reviews, it was emphasized
that treatment within the first 24 hours is associated
with successful outcomes.[5,6,10]
In perforations with large mediastinal or pleural contamination, operative treatment is more frequently necessary. Boerhaave syndrome and large iatrogenic perforations have more possibility to benefit from operative treatment. Operative mortality rate varied between 0% and 80% in a meta-analysis between 1990 and 2003, and mean mortality rate was reported to be 18%.[11] In more recent series, mortality rate is between 2% and 20%, and lower than 10% in most series.[12-14]
While many authors advocate the open surgical treatment for esophageal perforations, other authors obtained excellent results with non-operative treatment of perforation and percutaneous control of mediastinal sepsis.[5,6,15,16] When self expanding covered stents started to be used in both benign perforations and anastomotic leakage, the treatment of esophageal perforation started to shift to minimally invasive methods.[9,17]
Minimally Invasive Surgery with Thoracoscopy
The purpose of the surgery is to provide sufficient
closure of the defect to allow esophageal healing, and to
remove esophageal content from thorax, mediastinum
and peritoneal space. In cases with mediastinal and
pleural contamination, even if endoscopic closure
is considered for the treatment of perforation,
thoracoscopy should also be added for mediastinal debridement and drainage. Thoracoscopic repair of
esophageal perforation causes less trauma in patients.
The purpose of the surgery is to provide sufficient
closure of the defect to allow esophageal healing, and
to wash esophageal content from thorax, mediastinum
and peritoneal space.
In selected patients with acute esophageal perforation, minimally invasive surgery is increasingly being used mostly for stable patients with mild contamination. The literature reports are mostly limited to case reports and small case series explaining the treatment of Boerhaave syndrome and perforation caused by balloon dilation in achalasia, summarizing the thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approaches.[10] Cho et al.[18] reported 15 cases with Boerhaave syndrome treated by thoracoscopy or thoracotomy based on the surgeons experience. Operation period, ventilation period and mortality rate in seven cases in the thoracoscopy group were lower. According to this study, regardless of the time elapsed from perforation to the treatment, thoracoscopic esophageal repair might be a decent alternative in cases with Boerhaave syndrome who are relatively stable or have moderate inflammation. Fiscon et al.[19] combined thoracoscopic treatment and endoscopic treatment in a case with Boerhaave syndrome.
Endoscopic Treatment
Endoscopic treatment is being used increasingly for
the treatment of perforation in cases who are diagnosed
early with no sign of sepsis. Endoscopic approach
can also be applied in perforated cases with ongoing
incomplete treatment. The ability to combine both
diagnosis and treatment obviously increases the utility
of endoscopy. The rate of endoscopic assessment and
treatment was 37% in between 1990 and 1994, and
increased to 80% in between 2005 and 2009.[20]
Endoscopic Clips<7b>
Endoscopic clips are currently the only endoluminal
device which can be used to close a mucosal defect
associated with acute esophageal perforation. There
are two types of clips approved by Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and it is possible to close small
perforations with them. Immediately diagnosed small
iatrogenic perforations are candidates to assess the
placement of endoscopic clip. In some cases, clips and
stents can be used together.
Through-The-Scope (TTS) Clips
Standard through-the-scope clips were initially
designed for hemostasis. Later, the design of TTS clips
were developed, and nowadays, started to be used for the closing of iatrogenic perforations.[21] Through-the-scope
clips can be used to close perforations smaller than
2 cm provided that the surrounding tissue is viable
and feasible. If the tissue surrounding the defect is
inflamed or endured, clip application might be difficult.
Each clip has different deployment mechanism, and
endoscopist and assistant should be familiar with
them. It is recommended to approach from the most
distal part with the first clip. Starting from distal
side prevents accidental loosening of the clips during
closure. As this method is new, there is limited data on
the successful use of clips for the closure of esophageal
perforation.[22-24]
Over-The-Scope Clips (OTSC)
In December 2010, a newer and bigger clip system
called OTSC (Ovesco Endoscopy, Campbell, CA,
USA) was approved by FDA. A single application of
OTSCs may provide full thickness closure of open
defects up to 2-3 cm. The design of this device, usually
known as bear-claw, is different from the design
of TTS clips. The advantage of OTS over TTS clips
is the ability to close long-term leakages and fistulas
even if the surrounding tissue is inflamed or endured.
This is possible as OTS devices have more pressure
force and tissue grip. Transparent applicator cap is
mounted on the tip of endoscope. Clip is made of a
biocompatible material, nitinol, and can stay in the
body for long-term. The caps are available in three
sizes, 11 mm, 12 mm and 14 mm, which are compatible
with almost all endoscopes on the market. During the
approach, caps with two different depths are available
to grip the tissue more or less. Clips are available in
three sizes adapted based on the cap sizes. There are
three different types of teeth compatible with different
tissues and indications including traumatic, atraumatic
and gastrostomy closure. While atraumatic clip is
preferred to control the bleeding, traumatic clip is
mostly used to close fistula and perforations.[10]
A successful full thickness closure was initially demonstrated in an animal experiment.[25] Later, many clinical trials reported that this device was successfully applied for the full thickness closure of perforation, leakage and fistula.[26,27] Haito-Chavez et al.[28] reported successful technical and clinical closure of the defect in all 188 patients by OTSC. Esophageal fistula was present in 16 of these cases, leakage in five, and perforation in 10. Similarly, Kirschniak et al.[29] reported 100% success rate for the closure of esophageal perforation by OTSC. While high success rates are reported, it should be remembered that it might be difficult to grip and fold the edges of the perforation if the perforation is large and necrotic. The closure of perforations with a diameter of more than 20 mm might be difficult due to the size of the clip and more than one clip might be necessary.[21]
Esophageal Stent Placement
Esophageal stents were initially used for palliative
purposes in the early years of 1990s. Since then,
partially covered and nowadays fully covered stents
are used for benign indications. Later, esophageal
stents were started to be used for the closure of
perforation and anastomotic leakage. The biggest
advantage of stent placement is the immediate control
of perforations, maintaining the esophageal wall
during mucosal healing, the possibility of early oral
nutrition and the prevention of stricture formation.[30-32]
Recently, for the treatment of esophageal perforation,
surgical intervention rate has been decreased and stent
placement has increased significantly.
Self Expandable Plastic Stents
Self expandable plastic stent (SEPS) is an effective,
safe, and relatively non-invasive method of treatment for
esophageal fistula and perforations. Polyflex (Boston
Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) stents are the most
commonly used SEPSs for this purpose. In order to
prevent migration, it is made from polyester completely
covered with silicon with increasingly expanding
proximal end. Self expandable plastic stents have high
level of efficacy in the treatment of esophageal leakage
and perforations. They have some advantages over
metal stents in the treatment of esophageal perforation:
they provide a safe and effective force to close soft
material leakage and prevent silicon membrane tissue
ingrowth. This allows easy repositioning of the stent
and stent removal. However, the placement of SEPS is
more difficult and the rate of migration is higher.[24,33,34]
In many studies, SEPSs are removed within 28 days. The most frequent complication is stent migration, seen in 8-23% of cases at short-term follow-up and approximately in 40% of cases at long-term follow-up.[24,33,34] High migration rate of the stent was associated with the smooth external surface of the polyflex stent and absence of obstruction in leakage area. This complication may be prevented by using stents with wider diameters or fixing the stent edge onto esophageal wall by means of endoscopic clips.[24]
Self-Expandable Metallic Stents
Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) have been
developed to treat malignant obstructions. However,
nowadays, with the development of partially covered,
fully covered and removable stents, their indications of use were widened. There are several important
functions of fully covered SEMS placement in
esophageal perforations. Stent covers the perforation
and removes the esophageal content from perforation
area. Thereby, oral intake can be reinitiated easily, and
contamination of extraluminal structures is prevented.
Stent also provides re-epithelization for the tissue.
Partially covered SEMS contains 1.5 cm of uncovered
segment on the proximal and distal ends. This helps
the stent to fit into its place and the prevention
of migration. Nevertheless, the removal of partially
covered SEMS might be difficult, and placement of a
second stent might be necessary.[21] Fully covered stents
are ideal to control leakage. However, the possibility of
migration is higher with these. Appropriate drainage
of the leakage area and particularly perforation is
highly important. Placement of a fully covered stent
prevents the leakage from the esophageal wall, but this
may also hinder the sufficient drainage of the cavity
and may cause sepsis. Freeman et al.[35] reported four
factors affecting the unsuccessful stent placement and
decreased efficacy for the treatment of leakage. These
include leakage on the proximal cervical esophageal,
passage of stent through gastro-esophageal junction, an
esophageal injury of >6 cm, and anastomotic leakage
associated with a more distal conduit leakage.
In a retrospective study, van Boeckel et al.[36] evaluated the usability of fully covered SEMS, partially covered SEMS and SEPS in 52 cases with benign esophageal rupture and anastomic leakages. A total of 83 stents were placed in 52 cases (61 partially covered SEMSs, 15 fully covered SEMSs, and seven SEPSs). Endoscopic stent removal was successful in all cases. While stent migration is mostly seen in fully covered SEMSs (20%), the migration rate was 14% in SEPSs and 10% in partially covered SEMSs. Tissue ingrowth and overgrowth were only seen in cases with partially covered SEMSs (11%). It was reported that covered stents that were placed for a period of five-six weeks for the treatment of benign esophageal perforation or anastomotic leakages might be an alternative to surgery. It was reported that there is no difference in efficacy between partially covered SEMSs, fully covered SEMSs and SEPSs; therefore, stent choice should be made based on the expected stent migration risks (SEPS and fully covered SEMS) and tissue overgrowth or ingrowth (partially covered SEMS).
Endoscopic Suturing
Endoscopic suturing techniques allow larger
defects to be closed. Endoscopic sutures have been
used to close both acute perforations and chronic
fistulas. However, it is more difficult than clip application as a technique. System provides the tissues
to be pulled to each other by full thickness sutures.
Device requires a two-channel therapeutic endoscope.
Tissue closing and suture placement might be facilitated
by a holding forceps pulling the tissue back. During
the procedure, auxiliary parts may be placed through
the working channel of the endoscope. The OverStitch
Endoscopic Suturing System (Apollo Endosurgery,
Austin, USA) allows interrupted or continuous suturing.
Also, fixation of the stent onto esophageal wall may be
established by endoscopic suture.[24]
Ngamruengphong et al.[37] compared migration rates between 44 cases who had endoscopic suturing for stent fixation and 81 cases who did not have endoscopic suture in a multicenter study performed in 125 cases. Stent migration was detected substantially in cases with no usage of endoscopic suture (33 vs. 16%, p=0.02).
Contrary to OTSC, the size of the perforation does not prevent closing. In a total of 13 cases with defects sized 25 mm to 50 mm, successful primary closing was reported using this method for the esophageal perforation.[38]
Endoscopic Vacuum Assisted Closure
Endoscopic vacuum assisted closure (EVAC) is
a new technique for the drainage of mediastinal
collections.[21] In acute esophageal perforation,
appropriate drainage of the extraluminal
contamination is necessary for a successful treatment
modality. Drainage procedure may be performed by
open or minimally invasive surgery or interventional
radiology. In addition to that, recently, EVAC sponge
system started to be used for the treatment of
perforation as it was used to close soft tissue defects.
While this approach is mainly used for chronic
fistulas, it was also thought to be used for acute
esophageal perforation.[10]
In the literature, the largest series on EVAC use belongs to Laukoetter et al.[39] with 52 cases. While 39 cases had anastomotic leakage, 13 cases had esophageal perforation, and 94% success rate was reported. Brangewitz et al.[40] compared 39 patients who were treated using SEMP or SEPS with 32 patients who were treated with EVAC for the treatment of intrathoracic esophageal leakage. In a multi-variable analysis, successful wound closure was found to be independently associated with EVAC treatment. The closure rate of the leakage in EVAC group (84.4%) was found to be significantly higher compared to SEMS/SEPS group (53.8%). They reported that EVAC is a more effective method of treatment than stents for the closure of intrathoracic leakages.
Tissue Sealants
The most common tissue sealants in clinical
practice are fibrin glue and cyanoacrylate. Fibrin glue
is most effective when applied on dry area; it requires
the endoscopic removal of tissue residue and pus. It
is applied via double lumen catheter to form a fibrin
cover on leakage area. Cyanoacrylate has antibacterial
properties and can be applied on an infected area.
Usually, before applying the tissue sealant, the mucosa
surrounding the gap is deepitheliazed by a cytology
brush to facilitate the healing of the fistula.[24] Tissue
sealants may be used stand alone or together with other
various techniques. Kotzampassi and Eleftheriadis[41]
reported 96.8% clinical and technical success rate
using tissue sealants in 63 cases with anastomotic
leakage.
Hybrid Procedures
In order to minimize the morbidity and mortality for
the treatment of esophageal treatment, endoscopic or
radiological techniques are combined with minimally
invasive or open surgery. This development may
include interventional radiological techniques to place
thoracic or mediastinal drains in cases with loculated
abscess or undrained fluid collection after primary
repair. Alternatively, thoracoscopic or laparoscopic
techniques can be used for drain placement or
decortication. Thoracoscopic drainage can be combined
with endoscopic methods such as stent or clip. Today,
the popularity of combining endoscopic treatment and
minimally invasive surgical treatment based on the
time of diagnosis and status has increased. Currently,
hybrid procedure is most frequently performed as
primary repair or thoracoscopic drainage performed
with endoscopic stent placement.[10]
In conclusion, minimally invasive methods accelerate the recovery of patients and decrease the period of hospitalization, patient morbidity, and costs. More accurate diagnosis and less invasive treatment reduce the morbidity and mortality to more acceptable levels. Endoscopic treatment should be considered for stable patients with smaller perforations which are contained or well drained. Even long-term esophageal fistulas resulting from perforation can be closed with endoscopic treatment. In cases with excessive contamination and large uncontained perforation, surgical treatment can be combined with endoscopic procedures. As endoscopic and radiologic therapeutic techniques are being developed day by day, hybrid procedures combining treatment methods will be more common. These minimally invasive methods can be easily applied in experienced thoracic surgery clinics, and in a near future, a consensus on the treatment of esophageal perforation can be established.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to
the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research
and/or authorship of this article.
1) Di Leo M, Maselli R, Ferrara EC, Poliani L, Al Awadhi S,
Repici A. Endoscopic Management of Benign Esophageal
Ruptures and Leaks. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol
2017;15:268-84.
2) Eroglu A, Aydin Y, Yilmaz O. Thoracic perforations-surgical
techniques. Ann Transl Med 2018;6:40.
3) Pasricha PJ, Fleischer DE, Kalloo AN. Endoscopic
perforations of the upper digestive tract: a review of their
pathogenesis, prevention, and management. Gastroenterology
1994;106:787-802.
4) Faggian A, Berritto D, Iacobellis F, Reginelli A, Cappabianca
S, Grassi R. Imaging Patients With Alimentary Tract
Perforation: Literature Review. Semin Ultrasound CT MR
2016;37:66-9.
5) Eroglu A, Can Kürkçüogu I, Karaoganogu N, Tekinbaş C,
Yimaz O, Başog M. Esophageal perforation: the importance
of early diagnosis and primary repair. Dis Esophagus
2004;17:91-4.
6) Eroglu A, Turkyilmaz A, Aydin Y, Yekeler E, Karaoglanoglu
N. Current management of esophageal perforation: 20 years
experience. Dis Esophagus 2009;22:374-80.
7) Foley MJ, Ghahremani GG, Rogers LF. Reappraisal
of contrast media used to detect upper gastrointestinal
perforations: comparison of ionic water-soluble media with
barium sulfate. Radiology 1982;144:231-7.
8) Fadoo F, Ruiz DE, Dawn SK, Webb WR, Gotway MB.
Helical CT esophagography for the evaluation of suspected
esophageal perforation or rupture. AJR Am J Roentgenol
2004;182:1177-9.
9) Ben-David K, Behrns K, Hochwald S, Rossidis G, Caban A,
Crippen C, et al. Esophageal perforation management using
a multidisciplinary minimally invasive treatment algorithm.
J Am Coll Surg 2014;218:768-74.
10) Carrott PW Jr, Low DE. Advances in the management of
esophageal perforation. Thorac Surg Clin 2011;21:541-55.
11) Brinster CJ, Singhal S, Lee L, Marshall MB, Kaiser LR,
Kucharczuk JC. Evolving options in the management of
esophageal perforation. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:1475-
83)
12) Vallböhmer D, Hölscher AH, Hölscher M, Bludau M,
Gutschow C, Stippel D, et al. Options in the management of
esophageal perforation: analysis over a 12-year period. Dis
Esophagus 2010;23:185-90.
13) Keeling WB, Miller DL, Lam GT, Kilgo P, Miller JI,
Mansour KA, et al. Low mortality after treatment for
esophageal perforation: a single-center experience.
Ann Thorac Surg 2010;90:1669-73.
14) Minnich DJ, Yu P, Bryant AS, Jarrar D, Cerfolio RJ.
Management of thoracic esophageal perforations. Eur J
Cardiothorac Surg 2011;40:931-7.
15) Vogel SB, Rout WR, Martin TD, Abbitt PL. Esophageal
perforation in adults: aggressive, conservative treatment
lowers morbidity and mortality. Ann Surg 2005;241:1016-21.
16) Ben-David K, Lopes J, Hochwald S, Draganov P, Forsmark C,
Collins D, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of esophageal
perforation using a multidisciplinary treatment algorithm: a
case series. Endoscopy 2011;43:160-2.
17) van Boeckel PG, Sijbring A, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD.
Systematic review: temporary stent placement for benign
rupture or anastomotic leak of the oesophagus. Aliment
Pharmacol Ther 2011;33:1292-301.
18) Cho JS, Kim YD, Kim JW, I HS, Kim MS. Thoracoscopic
primary esophageal repair in patients with Boerhaave's
syndrome. Ann Thorac Surg 2011;91:1552-5.
19) Fiscon V, Portale G, Fania P, Duodeci S, Frigo F, Migliorini
G. Successful minimally invasive repair of spontaneous
esophageal perforation. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A
2008;18:721-2.
20) Kuppusamy MK, Hubka M, Felisky CD, Carrott P, Kline
EM, Koehler RP, et al. Evolving management strategies
in esophageal perforation: surgeons using nonoperative
techniques to improve outcomes. J Am Coll Surg
2011;213:164-71.
21) Saxena P, Khashab MA. Endoscopic Management of
Esophageal Perforations: Who, When, and How? Curr Treat
Options Gastroenterol 2017;15:35-45.
22) Coda S, Antonellis F, Tsagkaropulos S, Francioni F,
Trentino P. Complete endoscopic closure (clipping) of a
large esophageal perforation after pneumatic dilation in a
patient with achalasia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A
2012;22:815-8.
23) Rokszin R, Simonka Z, Paszt A, Szepes A, Kucsa K, Lazar
G. Successful endoscopic clipping in the early treatment of
spontaneous esophageal perforation. Surg Laparosc Endosc
Percutan Tech 2011;21:311-2.
24) Rogalski P, Daniluk J, Baniukiewicz A, Wroblewski E,
Dabrowski A. Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal
perforations, leaks and fistulas. World J Gastroenterol
2015;21:10542-52.
25) von Renteln D, Schmidt A, Vassiliou MC, Rudolph HU, Caca
K. Endoscopic full-thickness resection and defect closure in
the colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:1267-73.
26) Nishiyama N, Mori H, Kobara H, Rafiq K, Fujihara S,
Kobayashi M, et al. Efficacy and safety of over-the-scope
clip: including complications after endoscopic submucosal
dissection. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:2752-60.
27) Ferreira AO, Lopes J, Velosa J. Snapper fishbone esophageal
perforation closed with an over-the-scope-clip. BMJ Case
Rep 2013;2013: bcr2013201614.
28) Haito-Chavez Y, Law JK, Kratt T, Arezzo A, Verra M,
Morino M, et al. International multicenter experience with an over-the-scope clipping device for endoscopic
management of GI defects (with video). Gastrointest Endosc
2014;80:610-22.
29) Kirschniak A, Subotova N, Zieker D, Königsrainer A, Kratt
T. The Over-The-Scope Clip (OTSC) for the treatment of
gastrointestinal bleeding, perforations, and fistulas. Surg
Endosc 2011;25:2901-5.
30) Eroğlu A, Aydın Y, Altuntaş B, Türkyılmaz A. Treatment
of complications caused by metallic stent placement in
esophageal cancer. Turk Gogus Kalp Dama 2016;24:703-10.
31) Turkyilmaz A, Eroglu A, Aydin Y, Kurt A, Bilen Y,
Karaoglanoglu N. Complications of metallic stent placement
in malignant esophageal stricture and their management.
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2010;20:10-5.
32) Turkyilmaz A, Aydin Y, Eroglu A, Bilen Y, Karaoglanoglu
N. Palliative management of esophagorespiratory fistula in
esophageal malignancy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan
Tech 2009;19:364-7.
33) Moyes LH, Mackay CK, Forshaw MJ. The use of selfexpanding
plastic stents in the management of oesophageal
leaks and spontaneous oesophageal perforations. Diagn Ther
Endosc 2011;2011:418103.
34) Hünerbein M, Stroszczynski C, Moesta KT, Schlag PM.
Treatment of thoracic anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy
with self-expanding plastic stents. Ann Surg 2004;240:801-7.
35) Freeman RK, Ascioti AJ, Giannini T, Mahidhara RJ.
Analysis of unsuccessful esophageal stent placements for
esophageal perforation, fistula, or anastomotic leak. Ann
Thorac Surg 2012;94:959-64.
36) van Boeckel PG, Dua KS, Weusten BL, Schmits RJ,
Surapaneni N, Timmer R, et al. Fully covered selfexpandable
metal stents (SEMS), partially covered SEMS
and self-expandable plastic stents for the treatment of
benign esophageal ruptures and anastomotic leaks. BMC
Gastroenterol 2012;12:19.
37) Ngamruengphong S, Sharaiha RZ, Sethi A, Siddiqui AA,
DiMaio CJ, Gonzalez S, et al. Endoscopic suturing for the
prevention of stent migration in benign upper gastrointestinal
conditions: a comparative multicenter study. Endoscopy
2016;48:802-8.
38) Sharaiha RZ, Kumta NA, DeFilippis EM, Dimaio
CJ, Gonzalez S, Gonda T, et al. A Large Multicenter
Experience With Endoscopic Suturing for Management
of Gastrointestinal Defects and Stent Anchorage in 122
Patients: A Retrospective Review. J Clin Gastroenterol
2016;50:388-92.
39) Laukoetter MG, Mennigen R, Neumann PA, Dhayat S, Horst
G, Palmes D, et al. Successful closure of defects in the upper
gastrointestinal tract by endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT):
a prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2017;31:2687-96.
Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery published orginal papers on topics in cardiovascular surgery, cardiovascular anesthesia,cardiology and thoracic surgery. These encompass all relevant clinical, surgical and laboratory specialities, editorials, current and collective reviews, tecnical knowhow papers, case reports, "How to Do It" papers. All copyrights of the articles that published or will be published belongs to Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and without permission of editorial board whole articles or any part of articles table pictures and graphics could not be published. Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery is indexed by Science Citation Index - Expanded (SCIE)
Editor of the Journal of Turkish Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Ataşehir Mah. Ataşehir Bulvarı 48 Ada Mimoza 2-2 K:2 D:6 Ataşehir - İSTANBUL - TURKEY
Phone: +90 216 456 14 54 | GSM: 0549 456 14 54 | e - Mail : dergi@tkdcd.org
www.tkdcd.org
){kind=link}