Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40569524›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2025

First impressions, second chances in esophageal perforations: treatment pathways and outcome prediction.

Vladimir Tverskov, Ory Wiesel, Samantha Schiller, Idan Carmeli, Nir Tsur, Hanoch Kashtan, Daniel Solomon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Vladimir Tverskov *Division of General Surgery, Rabin Medical Center (Affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Petah Tikva, Israel.
Ory Wiesel *Department of Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Tzafon Medical Center (Affiliated with the Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University), Poriya, Israel.
Samantha SchillerFaculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Idan CarmeliDivision of General Surgery, Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital (Affiliated with the Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University), Ha-Refua'a 9 St, 7747629, Ashdod, Israel.
Nir TsurDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rabin Medical Center (Affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Petah Tikva, Israel.
Hanoch KashtanDivision of General Surgery, Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital (Affiliated with the Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University), Ha-Refua'a 9 St, 7747629, Ashdod, Israel.
Daniel SolomonDivision of General Surgery, Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital (Affiliated with the Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University), Ha-Refua'a 9 St, 7747629, Ashdod, Israel. danielsol@assuta.co.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7517-0122

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Benign esophageal perforations present a significant clinical challenge due to their high morbidity and potential for fatal outcomes. The complex nature of these perforations demands prompt diagnosis and effective management to mitigate the associated risks. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of various management strategies for esophageal perforations, focusing on the effectiveness of organ-preserving approaches. We retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed with benign esophageal perforation between January 2011 and December 2021. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who underwent resection and those who did not. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients managed initially without resection to assess the success of organ-preserving strategies (successful organ preservation, SOP) vs. either salvage resection or death (unsuccessful organ preservation, UOP). Forty-two patients were included: 22 underwent esophageal resection, while 20 were managed non-operatively. The overall 90-day mortality rate was 26%, with higher mortality observed in the resection group. In patients managed initially without resection, 62.1% had successful outcomes, while 37.9% required salvage esophagectomy or died within 90 days. The Pittsburgh Severity Score (PSS) did not significantly predict the need for resection. Distal perforations underwent resection more frequently (p < .001). Overall 90-day mortality was high both among patients who underwent initial resection (5/13, 38.5%) and salvage esophagectomy (3/8, 37.5%). Twenty-nine patients did not initially undergo resection, of which n = 18 (62.1%) were categorized as SOP and n = 11 (37.9%) as UOP. Among the latter, n = 3 (10.3%) died within 90 days and n = 8 (27.6%) underwent salvage esophagectomy. On subgroup analysis on initially unresected patients, delayed diagnosis ≥ 24 h was higher among UOP than SOP patients (n = 5, 45.5% vs. n = 2, 11.1%, p = 0.49). Our findings underscore the importance of early diagnosis and the feasibility of a step-up approach in a select group of patients presenting with favorable variables.

Indexed as

Esophageal PerforationEsophagectomyAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSalvage TherapyTreatment OutcomeBenignEsophageal perforationEsophageal resectionEsophagectomyIatrogenic injury

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.