Successful closure of spontaneous esophageal rupture (Boerhaave’s syndrome) by endoscopic ligation with snare loops
© The Author(s) 2016
Received: 2 February 2016
Accepted: 17 June 2016
Published: 29 June 2016
Spontaneous esophageal rupture is a rare condition with a high mortality rate, and it is generally treated by surgery. In the present report, successful non-surgical closure of spontaneous esophageal rupture by endoscopic ligation with snare loops in a patient with pyopneumothorax and septicemia is presented.
The case of an 80-year-old man patient with spontaneous esophageal rupture who was cured by endoscopic ligation with snare loops is reported. The patient was admitted with severe chest pain. Chest CT scan revealed pneumomediastinum, and an upper gastrointestinal series using gastrografin showed leakage of contrast medium from the lower esophagus. Therefore, a diagnosis of spontaneous esophageal rupture to the thorax was made. Since the family refused surgery, the patient was treated conservatively. Since extensive blood in the stool was noted on day 5, an emergency endoscopic examination was performed. Clipping was performed around the perforation, and the clips were ligated with snare loops. The patient was discharged on day 83 without recurrence.
Discussion and evaluation
We suggest that endoscopic ligation with snare loops should be chosen for elderly people and high-risk cases.
KeywordsSpontaneous esophageal rupture Snare Conservative therapy
Endoscopic ligation with snare loops has mainly been used to prevent hemorrhage and perforation in endoscopic polypectomy. However, the closure of spontaneous esophageal rupture (Boerhaave’s syndrome) by endoscopic ligation has not been reported. In the present report, successful non-surgical closure of spontaneous esophageal rupture by endoscopic ligation with snare loops in a patient with pyopneumothorax and septicemia is presented.
Spontaneous esophageal rupture was first described by Herman Boerhaave in 1724, while Barrett reported the first successful surgical repair in 1946 (Boerhaave 1955; Barrett 1946). Despite this long history, Boerhaave’s syndrome remains difficult to diagnose early; it is a rare syndrome, seldom presenting with the classical triad of vomiting, chest pain, and subcutaneous emphysema (Walker et al. 1985). Delay in diagnosis reportedly leads to its high overall mortality, especially in the case of high-risk, less treatment burden is selected (Landen and Nakadi 2002).
Among the diagnostic studies, a radiographic examination of the chest usually shows free mediastinal air and hydro- or pneumothorax. At this time, the diagnosis should be strongly suspected and contrast examination of the esophagus performed immediately to demonstrate the rent. Esophagoscopy has also been used as a diagnostic tool (Callaghan 1972).
The diagnosis is often missed initially due to the infrequent occurrence of this syndrome and to the many conditions that in some way mimic it, such as perforated or bleeding ulcers, acute pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, myocardial infraction, pulmonary embolism, and spontaneous pneumothorax.
Spontaneous esophageal perforation, when the diagnosis is delayed, general condition is poor, made often can not be carried out only conservative medical treatment. If recognized early, surgery in the form of primary repair or gastroesophageal resection is possible. When delayed, infection precludes surgical treatment (Osamu et al. 2015).
Idiopathic esophageal rupture of prognosis is appropriate drainage is related intimately to whether it is carried out. In particular, the drainage in the mediastinum and in the thoracic cavity is important. A drainage tube is often inserted under the CT guide recently. The tube it’s possible to wash is often also used (Yoshinori et al. 2015).
Endoscopic clipping has been used to close esophageal tears and gastric, duodenal, and colonic perforations (Kaneko et al. 1999; Yoshikane et al. 1999), closure of spontaneous esophageal perforations by ligation with snare loops has not been reported. This technique was used to close a post-EMR perforation in the duodenum (Bruckner et al. 1991). Generally, clipping of perforations after 48 h is difficult because the necrotic edges of the perforation cannot hold the clips adequately.
Other forms of endoscopic treatment include placement of temporary plastic endoprostheses in the management of anastomotic leaks (Pross and Ridwelski 2000). Pross et al. described minimally invasive treatment of iatrogenic esophageal perforation by a combination of thoracoscopic posterior mediastinal drainage and deployment of an esophageal self-expanding metal stent (Tatsuro et al. 1997). Metal stents are difficult to remove, and, hence, plastic endoprostheses are preferred whenever subsequent removal of the stent is contemplated.
It has been reported that, if drainage is good, the perforation sites heal at a rate of 1 cm per month (Samarasena et al. 2012). It is believed that, with this treatment, wound healing has been improved.
In recent years, two new techniques are now available that enlarge the possibilities of defect closure: endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), and over-the-scope clip (OTSC). EVT is performed by mounting a polyurethane sponge on a gastric tube and placing it into the leakage. Continuous suction is applied via the tube resulting in effective drainage of the cavity and the induction of wound healing, comparable to the application of vacuum therapy in cutaneous wounds. The overall success rate of EVT in the literature ranges from 84 to 100 %, with a mean of 90 %. OTSCs are loaded on a transparent cap which is mounted on the tip of a standard endoscope. By bringing the edges of the perforation into the cap, by suction or by dedicated devices, such as anchor or twin grasper, the OTSC can be placed to close the perforation. For acute endoscopy associated perforations, the mean success rate is 90 % (range 70–100 %). Only few complications have been reported in both techniques (Menningen et al. 2014).
The new device does not require in our techniques. But, it is important to select the one that best suited from a variety of treatments.
Endoscopic ligation with snare loops may be useful for non-surgical closure of spontaneous esophageal perforation, even if the diagnosis is delayed. It will be necessary to select therapies suitable for patients.
JK, YW, YK, NH, YI, KS, MY, YY and SK authors have worked equally for all the parts of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
We are grateful to Leon Sakuma who drew the illustrations for the manuscript. Also We are grateful to the staff of the hospital who conducted both the medical treatment of the patient.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Human rights statement and informed consent
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. Informed consent or substitute for it was obtained from the patient for being included in the study. I obtained a signed statement from the patient which authorises the use of his personal and/or medical information in the publication of my study.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Barrett NR (1946) Spontaneous perforation of the oesophagus. Review of the literature and report of three new cases. Thorax 1:48–70View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Boerhaave H (1955) Atrocis, nec descripti prius, morbi historia. Secundum medicae artis leges conscripta. Lugduni Batavorum Boutesteniana, 1724. (English translation Derbes VJ, Mitchell RE). Bull Med Libr Ass 43:217–240Google Scholar
- Bruckner M, Grimm H, Nam VC, Soehendra N (1991) Experience with a transnasally fixed endoprosthesis for treating esophageal anastomotic leakage. Surg Endosc 5:185–188View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Callaghan J (1972) The Boerhaave syndrome. Br J Surg 59:41View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kaneko T, Akamatsu T, Shimodaira K, Ueno T, Gotoh A, Mukawa K et al (1999) Nonsurgical treatment of duodenal perforation by endoscopic repair using a clipping device. Gastrointest Endosc 50:410–413View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Landen S, EI Nakadi I (2002) Minimally invasive approach to Boerhaave`s syndrome;a pilot study of three cases. Surg Endosc 16:1354–1357View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Menningen Rudolf, Senninger Norbert, Laukoetter Mike G et al (2014) Novel treatment options for perforations of the upper gastrointestinal tract: endoscopic vaccum therapy and over-the-scope clips. World J Gastroenterol 20(24):7767–7776View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Osamu C, Hiroyasu M, Soji O (2015) Clinical study on the treatment outcome and strategy for spontaneous esophageal rupture. J Abdom Emerg Med. 35(7):831–840Google Scholar
- Pross M, Ridwelski K, Mankte R, Weiss G, Lippert H (2000) Esophageal perforation: is minimally invasive treatment possible? Endoscopy 32:S48Google Scholar
- Samarasena JB, Nakai Y, Park DH et al (2012) Endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic duodenal perforation: a novel technique using endoclips, endoloop, and fibrin glue. Endoscopy 44(Suppl. 2):e424–e425Google Scholar
- Tatsuro S, Takao N, Yutaka M et al (1997) Clinical study on spontaneous esophageal ruputure. J Abdom Emerg Med 17(7):963–970Google Scholar
- Walker WS, Cameron EWJ, Walbaum PR (1985) Diagnosis and management of spontaneous transmural rupture of the oesophagus (Boerhaave`s syndrome). Br J Surg 72:204–207View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yoshikane H, Hidano H, Sakakibara A, Ayakawa T, Mori S, Kawashima H et al (1999) Endoscopic repair by clipping of iatrogenic colonic perforation. Gastrointest Endosc 50:762–767View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yoshinori M, Katsuyuki M, Takaaki K (2015) Evaluation and treatment of esophageal rupture and perforation. J Abdom Emerg Med. 35(1):35–41Google Scholar