Owing to the potentially severe complications they can cause, pulmonary sequestrations should be removed whenever they are diagnosed. Since careful dissection provides sufficient surgical comfort, preoperative identification of the aberrant vessels is not a rule for the success of the operation.

Esophageal perforation is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, particularly if not diagnosed and treated promptly. Despite the many advances in thoracic surgery, the management of patients with esophageal perforation remains controversial. We performed a retrospective clinical review of 36 patients, 15 women (41.7%) and 21 men (58.3%), treated at our hospital for esophageal perforation between 1989 and 2002. The mean age was 54.3 years (range 7-76 years). Iatrogenic causes were found in 63.9% of perforations, foreign body perforation in 16.7%, traumatic perforation in 13.9% and spontaneous rupture in 5.5%. Perforation occurred in the cervical esophagus in 12 cases, thoracic esophagus in 13 and abdominal esophagus in 11. Pain was the most common presenting symptom, occurring in 24 patients (66.7%). Dyspnea was noted in 14 patients (38.9%), fever in 12 (33.3%) and subcutaneous emphysema in 25 (69.4%). Management of esophageal perforation included primary closure in 19 (52.8%), resection in seven (19.4%) and non-surgical therapy in 10 (27.8%). The 30-day mortality was found to be 13.9%, and mean hospital stay was 24.4 days. In the surgically treated group the mortality rate was three of 26 patients (11.5%), and two of 10 patients (20%) in the conservatively managed group. Survival was significantly influenced by a delay of more than 24 h in the initiation of treatment. Primary closure within 24 h resulted in the most favorable outcome. Esophageal perforation is a life threatening condition, and any delay in diagnosis and therapy remains a major contributor to the attendant mortality.

Esophagogastric anastomotic leaks are the most feared surgical complications following resection of esophageal cancers. We aimed to develop a therapeutic algorithm for this complication characterized by high morbidity and mortality using our 20 years of experience and the published literature. A total of 354 patients who had undergone an esophagectomy and esophagogastric anastomosis due to esophageal carcinoma were evaluated retrospectively. The incidence for anastomotic leak was 15.5% (n = 90) in the cervical region and 4.2% (n = 264) in the thoracic region (mean: 7.1%). Cervical anastomotic leaks were detected after a mean period of 7.2 days following the procedure. Fourteen patients with cervical leaks were treated conservatively. Four out of 14 patients (28.6%) died due to sepsis and multi-organ failure related to fistula. Thoracic anastomotic leaks were detected after a mean period of 4.7 days following the procedure. Emergency reoperation, resection and reconstruction procedures were performed in one patient. Self-expanding metallic coated stents were placed at the anastomosis region in two patients. A more conservative approach was employed in other patients with thoracic anastomotic leaks. Six of them (46.2%) died due to fistula. General mortality rate was 37.0%, and the duration of hospitalization was 40.0 days for patients with anastomotic leaks. Cervical anastomotic leaks are more common than thoracic anastomotic leaks, but most of them are successfully treated with conservative approaches. Thoracic anastomotic leaks that in the past were related to high mortality rates despite conservative or surgical procedures might be successfully treated nowadays with the use of self-expanding metallic coated stents.

Giant hydatid lung cysts must be regarded as a different clinical entity because of their early occurrence, having more serious symptoms, with frequent operative complications, and they need prolonged care with higher cost effects.

Esophageal perforations are surgical emergencies associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. No single strategy has been sufficient to deal with the majority of situations. We aim to postulate a therapeutic algorithm for this complication based on 20 years of experience and also on data from published literature. We performed a retrospective clinical review of 44 patients treated for esophageal perforation at our hospital between January 1989 and May 2008. We reviewed the characteristics of these patients, including age, gender, accompanying diseases, etiology of perforation, diagnosis, location, time interval between perforation and diagnosis, treatment of the perforation, morbidity, hospital mortality, and duration of hospitalization. Perforation occurred in the cervical esophagus in 14 patients (31.8%), thoracic esophagus in 18 patients (40.9%), and abdominal esophagus in 12 patients (27.3%). Management of the esophageal perforation included primary closure in 23 patients (52.3%), resection in 7 patients (15.9%), and nonsurgical therapy in 14 patients (31.8%). In the surgically treated group, the mortality rate was 3 of 30 patients (10%), and 2 of 14 patients (14.3%) in the conservatively managed group. Four of the 14 nonsurgical patients were inserted with covered self-expandable stents. The specific treatment of an esophageal perforation should be selected according to each individual patient. To date, the most effective treatment would appear to be operative management. With improvements in endoscopic procedures, the morbidity and mortality rates of esophageal perforations are significantly decreased. We suggest that minimally invasive techniques for the repair of esophageal perforations will be very important in the future treatment of this condition.