No abstract

Background: To investigate the efficacy of primary and rescue endoluminal vacuum (EVAC) therapy in the treatment of esophageal perforations and leaks.Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively gathered, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved database of EVAC therapy patients at our center from July 2013 to September 2016.Results: In all, 13 patients were treated for esophageal perforations or leaks. Etiologies included iatrogenic injury (n = 8), anastomotic leak (n = 2), Boerhaave syndrome (n = 1), and bronchoesophageal fistula (n = 2). In total, 10 patients underwent primary treatment and three were treated with rescue therapy. Mean Perforation Severity Scores (PSSs) in the primary and rescue treatment groups were 7 and 10, respectively. Average defect size was 2.4 (range: 0.5–6) cm. The rescue group had a shorter mean time to defect closure (25 vs. 33 days). In all, 12 of 13 defects healed. One death occurred following the implementation of comfort care. One therapy-specific complication occurred. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was longer in the rescue group (72 vs. 53 days); however, the intensive care unit (ICU) duration was similar between groups. Totally, 10 patients (83%) resumed an oral diet after successful defect closure.Conclusion: Utilized as either a primary or rescue therapy, EVAC therapy appears to be beneficial in the management of esophageal perforations or leaks.

Our experience demonstrates that EVAC therapy is feasible and effective for the management of gastrointestinal perforations/leaks throughout the GI tract and can be considered as a safe alternative to surgical intervention in select cases.

Achalasia is a rare disorder that has several treatment options. The gold standard of treatment is a surgical myotomy called a laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). More recently, an endoscopic myotomy has become an option as well, called per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). An achalasia registry was queried for patients undergoing either LHM or POEM at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative data points, and Eckardt scores were collected. The patients were further stratified into their follow-up intervals, immediate postoperative and long-term follow-up, to assess surgical success. A subset analysis was done for success of treatment for patients who had redo surgery versus those undergoing the procedure for the first time. There were 12 patients in the POEM group and 11 patients in the LHM group. Both groups demonstrated mean lower esophageal sphincter pressures with failure to relax. Procedure length and hospital length of stay were similar between the two groups. There were three adverse events in each group, but none altered the patient's postoperative clinical course. Eckardt scores, used to assess success of the surgery, were 82% for POEM patients and 66% for LHM patients after 6 months. The outcomes for POEM and LHM in our early experience are similar to those reported in the literature for high-volume centers managing achalasia.