ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Endoscopic management of esophageal perforations: a multi-center study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Severity-guided management of esophageal perforation: a retrospective cohort study supporting a pragmatic treatment algorithm.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal perforation (EP) is a rare but life-threatening condition with an incidence of approximately 3.1 per million annually. While iatrogenic injury during endoscopy is the leading cause, other etiologies include spontaneous rupture, trauma, and malignancy. EP can present with nonspecific symptoms, most commonly chest pain or dysphagia, and diagnostic delays are associated with worse outcomes. Multiple non-operative strategies exist, including primary closure, stenting (bypass), combination therapy, and conservative management. However, data guiding the optimal approach remain limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of different non-operative management strategies for EP and identify predictors of successful repair.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed adult patients with EP across three Mayo Clinic sites between 2007 and 2023. Patients were categorized into four groups based on treatment modality. Demographics, clinical features, imaging, endoscopic intervention, and outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as avoidance of surgical intervention. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of success.
resultsA total of 72 patients were included (mean age 63.7 years, 65.3% male). The most common cause was iatrogenic injury (58.3%), and the distal esophagus was the most frequent site (67.6%). Non-operative success was 100% in the primary closure and combination groups, and 42.9% in the conservative group (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, non-conservative therapy significantly predicted success (aOR 22.4, 95% CI [1.2-407.4], p = 0.036).
conclusionPrimary closure and combination endoscopic approaches offer superior outcomes in managing EP. Early intervention with appropriate modality selection is critical to avoid surgical escalation and improve prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.