There is no consensus on the appropriate therapeutic strategy for Boerhaave syndrome due to its rarity and changing therapeutic approaches.We conducted a systematic review of case reports documenting Boerhaave syndrom...There is no consensus on the appropriate therapeutic strategy for Boerhaave syndrome due to its rarity and changing therapeutic approaches.We conducted a systematic review of case reports documenting Boerhaave syndrome.AIM To assess the therapeutic methods and clinical outcomes and discuss the current trends in the management of Boerhaave syndrome.METHODS We searched PubMed,Google scholar,MEDLINE,and The Cochrane Library for studies concerning Boerhaave syndrome published between 2017 and 2022.RESULTS Of the included studies,49 were case reports,including a total of 56 cases.The mean age was 55.8±16 years old.Initial conservative treatment was performed in 25 cases,while operation was performed in 31 cases.The rate of conservative treatment was significantly higher than that of operation in cases of shock vital on admission(9.7%vs 44.0%;P=0.005).Seventeen out of 25 conservative cases(68.0%)were initially treated endoscopic esophageal stenting;2 of those 17 cases subsequently underwent operation due to poor infection control.Twelve cases developed postoperative leakage(38.7%),and 4 of those 12 cases underwent endoscopic esophageal stenting to stop the leakage.The length of the hospital stay was not significantly different between the conservative treatment and operation cases(operation vs conservation:33.52±22.69 vs 38.81±35.28 days;P=0.553).CONCLUSION In the treatment of Boerhaave syndrome,it is most important to diagnose the issue immediately.Primary repair with reinforcement is the gold-standard procedure.The indication of endoscopic esophageal stenting or endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy should always be considered for patients in a poor general condition and who continue to have leakage after repair.展开更多
To assess the impact of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) on surgical blood loss (SBL), especially in patients with antithrombotics for thromboembolic risks. METHODSConsecutive 258 patients receiving liver resection ...To assess the impact of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) on surgical blood loss (SBL), especially in patients with antithrombotics for thromboembolic risks. METHODSConsecutive 258 patients receiving liver resection at our institution between 2010 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative antithrombotic therapy (ATT; antiplatelets and/or anticoagulation) was regularly used in 100 patients (ATT group, 38.8%) whereas not used in 158 (non-ATT group, 61.2%). Our perioperative management of high thromboembolic risk patients included maintenance of preoperative aspirin monotherapy for patients with antiplatelet therapy and bridging heparin for patients with anticoagulation. In both ATT and non-ATT groups, outcome variables of patients undergoing LLR were compared with those of patients receiving open liver resection (OLR), and the independent risk factors for increased SBL were determined by multivariate analysis. RESULTSThis series included 77 LLR and 181 OLR. There were 3 thromboembolic events (1.2%) in a whole cohort, whereas increased SBL (≥ 500 mL) and postoperative bleeding complications (BCs) occurred in 66 patients (25.6%) and 8 (3.1%), respectively. Both in the ATT and non-ATT groups, LLR was significantly related to reduced SBL and low incidence of BCs, although LLR was less performed as anatomical resection. Multivariate analysis showed that anatomical liver resection was the most significant risk factor for increased SBL [risk ratio (RR) = 6.54, P < 0.001] in the whole cohort, and LLR also had the significant negative impact (RR = 1/10.0, P < 0.001). The same effects of anatomical resection (RR = 15.77, P < 0.001) and LLR (RR = 1/5.88, P = 0.019) were observed when analyzing the patients in the ATT group. CONCLUSIONLLR using the two-surgeon technique is feasible and safely performed even in the ATT-burdened patients with thromboembolic risks. Independent from the extent of liver resection, LLR is significantly associated with reduced SBL, both in the ATT and non-ATT groups.展开更多
文摘There is no consensus on the appropriate therapeutic strategy for Boerhaave syndrome due to its rarity and changing therapeutic approaches.We conducted a systematic review of case reports documenting Boerhaave syndrome.AIM To assess the therapeutic methods and clinical outcomes and discuss the current trends in the management of Boerhaave syndrome.METHODS We searched PubMed,Google scholar,MEDLINE,and The Cochrane Library for studies concerning Boerhaave syndrome published between 2017 and 2022.RESULTS Of the included studies,49 were case reports,including a total of 56 cases.The mean age was 55.8±16 years old.Initial conservative treatment was performed in 25 cases,while operation was performed in 31 cases.The rate of conservative treatment was significantly higher than that of operation in cases of shock vital on admission(9.7%vs 44.0%;P=0.005).Seventeen out of 25 conservative cases(68.0%)were initially treated endoscopic esophageal stenting;2 of those 17 cases subsequently underwent operation due to poor infection control.Twelve cases developed postoperative leakage(38.7%),and 4 of those 12 cases underwent endoscopic esophageal stenting to stop the leakage.The length of the hospital stay was not significantly different between the conservative treatment and operation cases(operation vs conservation:33.52±22.69 vs 38.81±35.28 days;P=0.553).CONCLUSION In the treatment of Boerhaave syndrome,it is most important to diagnose the issue immediately.Primary repair with reinforcement is the gold-standard procedure.The indication of endoscopic esophageal stenting or endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy should always be considered for patients in a poor general condition and who continue to have leakage after repair.
文摘To assess the impact of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) on surgical blood loss (SBL), especially in patients with antithrombotics for thromboembolic risks. METHODSConsecutive 258 patients receiving liver resection at our institution between 2010 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative antithrombotic therapy (ATT; antiplatelets and/or anticoagulation) was regularly used in 100 patients (ATT group, 38.8%) whereas not used in 158 (non-ATT group, 61.2%). Our perioperative management of high thromboembolic risk patients included maintenance of preoperative aspirin monotherapy for patients with antiplatelet therapy and bridging heparin for patients with anticoagulation. In both ATT and non-ATT groups, outcome variables of patients undergoing LLR were compared with those of patients receiving open liver resection (OLR), and the independent risk factors for increased SBL were determined by multivariate analysis. RESULTSThis series included 77 LLR and 181 OLR. There were 3 thromboembolic events (1.2%) in a whole cohort, whereas increased SBL (≥ 500 mL) and postoperative bleeding complications (BCs) occurred in 66 patients (25.6%) and 8 (3.1%), respectively. Both in the ATT and non-ATT groups, LLR was significantly related to reduced SBL and low incidence of BCs, although LLR was less performed as anatomical resection. Multivariate analysis showed that anatomical liver resection was the most significant risk factor for increased SBL [risk ratio (RR) = 6.54, P < 0.001] in the whole cohort, and LLR also had the significant negative impact (RR = 1/10.0, P < 0.001). The same effects of anatomical resection (RR = 15.77, P < 0.001) and LLR (RR = 1/5.88, P = 0.019) were observed when analyzing the patients in the ATT group. CONCLUSIONLLR using the two-surgeon technique is feasible and safely performed even in the ATT-burdened patients with thromboembolic risks. Independent from the extent of liver resection, LLR is significantly associated with reduced SBL, both in the ATT and non-ATT groups.
