SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Management of iatrogenic esophageal perforations: a systematic review of non-surgical causes.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIatrogenic esophageal perforations (IEP) are uncommon but potentially fatal complications, most frequently related to endoscopic procedures. Previous systematic reviews have evaluated esophageal perforations as a heterogeneous entity, frequently combining spontaneous, traumatic, surgical, and iatrogenic causes. However, outcome estimates specific to non-surgical, iatrogenic perforations remain less clearly defined. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the causes, management strategies, and outcomes of patients managed for non-surgical IEPs.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed from inception to September 2025 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of adult patients with iatrogenic, non-surgical esophageal perforations were included. Postoperative surgical perforations and case reports were excluded. Primary outcomes were procedure type leading to perforation, overall mortality, and mortality according to treatment strategy. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for pooled estimates.
resultsTwenty-five studies encompassing 596 patients were included. Interventional procedures accounted for 71.1% of perforations, while diagnostic procedures accounted for 28.9%. Diagnostic endoscopy was significantly less likely to cause perforation compared with interventional procedures (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.45). The pooled overall mortality rate was 9.75% (95% CI 5.9%-13.6%). Among studies reporting treatment-specific outcomes, endoscopic-based management was employed in 48.1% of patients, most commonly involving esophageal stenting, and was associated with a pooled mortality of 11.37% (95% CI 2.84%-19.9%). Surgical management was used in 51.9% of cases, predominantly primary repair or esophagectomy, with a pooled mortality of 11.58% (95% CI 7.13%-16.03%).
conclusionsNon-surgical IEP occurs predominantly after interventional procedures and remains associated with substantial mortality approaching 10%. Endoscopy-based management, particularly with stent placement, has become central to treatment and demonstrates outcomes comparable to surgery in selected patients, while surgery remains as a salvage option. Management should be individualized, and further high-quality studies are needed to refine treatment algorithms.
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.