Esophagectomy in esophageal perforations: an analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to study the factors that are associated with urgent esophagectomy for the treatment of esophageal perforations and the impact of this therapy. A retrospective review of all esophageal perforations treated at a tertiary care hospital from January 1984 to January 2012 was performed. Compiling demographics, cause and site of perforations, time to presentation, comorbidities, radiological tests, the length of perforation, the hemodynamic status of the patient, type of treatment required, and outcomes were performed. Univariate, multivariate, and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Of 127 cases of esophageal perforation, it was spontaneous in 44 (35%), iatrogenic in 53 (44%), foreign body ingestion in 22 (17%), and traumatic perforation in 7 (6%) cases. Overall, 85 of the 127 (67%) patients were managed operatively, 35 (27.6%) patients were treated conservatively, and 7 (6.3%) patients were treated by endoscopic stent placement. Of the 85 patients who were managed operatively, 21 (16.5%) required esophagectomies, 13 (15.3%) had esophagectomy with immediate reconstruction, 5 (5.9%) patients had esophagectomy followed by delayed reconstruction, and 3 (3.5%) patients failed primary repair and required an esophagectomy as a secondary definitive procedure. Multivariate analysis revealed that esophagectomy in esophageal perforations was associated with the presence of benign or malignant esophageal stricture (P = 0.001) and a perforation >5 cm (P = 0.001). Mortality was mainly associated with the presence of a benign or malignant esophageal stricture (P = 0.04). The presence of pre-existing benign or malignant stricture or large perforation (>5 cm) is associated with the need for an urgent esophagectomy with or without immediate reconstruction. Performing esophagectomy was not found to be a significant prognosticator for mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".