Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Digestive System and Liver›Esophageal Perforation

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Esophageal Perforation

Digestive System and Liver · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-11-04 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 4 min read

An opening or hole in the esophagus that is caused by trauma, injury, or pathological process.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (849 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

An opening or hole in the esophagus that is caused by trauma, injury, or pathological process.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Esophageal Perforations; Perforation, Esophageal; Perforations, Esophageal.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Esophageal Diseases; Wounds and Injuries
Narrower topics
Mallory-Weiss Syndrome

Related concepts

  • Esophagus
  • Trauma

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 4,700 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Esophageal Perforation” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 429 of them (9.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 2,461 records.

Reviews account for 426 records (9.1%) and meta-analyses for 14. Randomized controlled trials number 17 (0.4%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 2,461 records; 2000-2009: 774 records; 2010-2019: 1,036 records; 2020 onward: 429 records2,461through 19997742000-20091,0362010-20194292020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19992,461
2000-2009774
2010-20191,036
2020 onward429
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 9.1 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.3 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 0.4 percentReviews9.1% (426)Meta-analyses0.3% (14)Randomized controlled trials0.4% (17)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 4,700 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews4269.1%
Meta-analyses140.3%
Randomized controlled trials170.4%

Method: PubMed query "Esophageal Perforation"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.

Reading the evidence in digestive system and liver

Gut and liver research ranges from laboratory studies of the microbiome to large trials of drugs and surgery. Symptoms such as pain, reflux or bowel change are reported by patients and overlap between conditions, and diet and microbiome studies are mostly observational. Check whether the study measured symptoms, tissue findings or long-term outcomes, how the diagnosis was made and how long people were followed. Nothing here replaces advice from a qualified clinician.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Esophageal perforation: diagnostic work-up and clinical decision-making in the first 24 hours
Søreide JA, Søreide JA, Viste A
2011Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
138cc by
PMID 22035338 · DOI · PMC3219576
The VACStent trial: combined treatment of esophageal leaks by covered stent and endoscopic vacuum therapy
Lange J, Kähler G, Bernhardt J, Knievel J, Dormann A, Hügle U, et al.
2023Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
33cc by
PMID 36639580 · DOI · PMC10156910
The Role of Operation in the Treatment of Boerhaave's Syndrome
Han D, Huang Z, Xiang J, Li H, Hang J
2018Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
29cc by
PMID 30050944 · DOI · PMC6046182
Robotic Heller's cardiomyotomy for achalasia: early outcomes for a high-volume UK centre
Nevins EJ, Greene K, Bawa S, Horgan L
2024Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
7cc by
PMID 37843105 · DOI · PMC10981992

Esophageal perforation: diagnostic work-up and clinical decision-making in the first 24 hours [1]

Review article Søreide JA, Søreide JA, Viste A · · 2011 · cited 138 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Esophageal perforation is a rare and potentially life-threatening condition.
Closing excerpt
Improved attention to non-specific symptoms and signs and early diagnosis based on imaging may translate into better outcomes for this group of patients, many of whom are elderly with significant comorbidity.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (171 words)

Esophageal perforation is a rare and potentially life-threatening condition. Early clinical suspicion and imaging is important for case management to achieve a good outcome. However, recent studies continue to report high morbidity and mortality greater than 20% from esophageal perforation. At least half of the perforations are iatrogenic, mostly related to endoscopic instrumentation used in the upper gastrointestinal tract, while about a third are spontaneous perforations. Surgical treatment remains an important option for many patients, but a non-operative approach, with or without use of an endoscopic stent or placement of internal or external drains, should be considered when the clinical situation allows for a less invasive approach. The rarity of this emergency makes it difficult for a physician to obtain extensive individual clinical experience; it is also challenging to obtain firm scientific evidence that informs patient management and clinical decision-making. Improved attention to non-specific symptoms and signs and early diagnosis based on imaging may translate into better outcomes for this group of patients, many of whom are elderly with significant comorbidity.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 22035338 · DOI · PMC3219576

The VACStent trial: combined treatment of esophageal leaks by covered stent and endoscopic vacuum therapy [2]

Research article Lange J, Kähler G, Bernhardt J, Knievel J, Dormann A, Hügle U, et al. · · 2023 · cited 33 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundEndoscopic treatment of esophageal leaks, mostly by covered stents or endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), has largely improved the clinical outcome in the last decade.
Closing excerpt
The VACStent offers a new option for clinical treatment of critical situations in esophageal perforations and anastomotic sutureline failures.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (307 words)

BackgroundEndoscopic treatment of esophageal leaks, mostly by covered stents or endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), has largely improved the clinical outcome in the last decade. However, both techniques suffer from significant limitations. Covered stents are hampered by a high rate of migration and missing functional drainage, whereas endoluminal EVT devices are limited by obstruction of the GI tract. The new design of the VACStent makes it a fully covered stent within a polyurethane sponge cylinder, allowing EVT while stent passage is still open. Initial clinical applications have demonstrated the fundamental concept of the VACStent.MethodA prospective multicenter open-label study was performed with the primary endpoint safe practicality, complete leak coverage, and effective suction-treatment of esophageal leaks. Secondary endpoints were prevention of septic conditions, successful leak healing, and complications, in particular stent-migration, local erosions and bleeding.ResultsFifteen patients with different, mostly postoperative anastomotic leaks were enrolled in three centers. A total of 41 VACStents were implanted. The mean number of VACStents per patient was 2.7, with a mean duration of VACStent treatment of 15 days. The primary endpoint was met in all VACStent applications (41/41 implants), resulting in a leak healing rate of 80% (12/15 patients). Septic episodes were prevented in 93% (14/15 patients) and there was no mortality. There were no severe device-related adverse events (SADE) nor significant local bleeding or erosion. Minor stent-dislocation and migration, respectively, was observed in 7%. Oral intake of liquids or food was documented in 87% (13/15 patients). One anastomotic stenosis was seen during follow-up.ConclusionsVACStent treatment is a safe and effective treatment in esophageal leaks which can be covered by the sponge cylinder. Its application was described as easy and resembling that of conventional GI stents, with an impressive clinical success rate comparable to EVT outcomes. The VACStent offers a new option for clinical treatment of critical situations in esophageal perforations and anastomotic sutureline failures.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 36639580 · DOI · PMC10156910

The Role of Operation in the Treatment of Boerhaave's Syndrome [3]

Research article Han D, Huang Z, Xiang J, Li H, Hang J · · 2018 · cited 29 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
PurposeThis study aims to discuss the appropriate treatment strategy for spontaneous esophageal rupture.
Closing excerpt
ConclusionsSurgical treatment remains an effective method for treating spontaneous esophageal rupture, and the shorter the time interval between onset and treatment, possibly the better the prognosis.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (129 words)

PurposeThis study aims to discuss the appropriate treatment strategy for spontaneous esophageal rupture.MethodsClinical data from twenty-one cases were retrospectively analyzed. The parameters included etiology, time interval between onset and treatment, therapy methods, prognosis, and length of stay.ResultsThe ratio of males/females was 17/4, age range was 32-82 years (mean = 43.1), and the time interval between onset and treatment was as follows: 72 h: six cases (28.6%). All patients underwent operative treatment, and the following primary healing rates were achieved: 72 h: 0. No patients died in this study. All patients were discharged with recovery, and the average hospitalization times were 18.1 days (72 h).ConclusionsSurgical treatment remains an effective method for treating spontaneous esophageal rupture, and the shorter the time interval between onset and treatment, possibly the better the prognosis.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30050944 · DOI · PMC6046182

Robotic Heller's cardiomyotomy for achalasia: early outcomes for a high-volume UK centre [4]

Research article Nevins EJ, Greene K, Bawa S, Horgan L · · 2024 · cited 7 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
IntroductionHeller's cardiomyotomy (HCM) is the gold standard treatment for achalasia.
Closing excerpt
The robotic approach may be superior to laparoscopy as it allows more precise identification and dissection of the oesophageal muscle fibres, which likely reduces the risk of inadvertent mucosal damage or incomplete myotomy.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (242 words)

IntroductionHeller's cardiomyotomy (HCM) is the gold standard treatment for achalasia. Laparoscopic HCM has been shown to be effective with low rates of symptom recurrence, though oesophageal mucosal perforation rates remain high. The aim of this prospective case series is to assess the short-term complication rates and perioperative outcomes for the first cohort of patients undergoing robotic-assisted HCM for achalasia in a single high-volume UK centre.MethodsData were collected from a prospective cohort of patients who underwent robotic HCM at a single high-volume UK centre. Outcomes were assessed using the Eckhard score, which was calculated after their routine postoperative clinic appointments.ResultsThirteen patients underwent robotic HCM during the study period; this is the second largest reported case series in the European literature. There were no intraoperative oesophageal perforations. Six patients were discharged as day cases, six patients were discharged on the first postoperative day and one patient's hospital stay was two nights. There was a single perioperative complication of urinary retention. All patients reported improvement of symptoms following their operation, and all had a postoperative Eckhard score of less than 3, indicating their achalasia was in remission.ConclusionsThis cohort has demonstrated that robotic HCM has an exceptional safety profile and results in high levels of symptom resolution, even early in the learning curve. The robotic approach may be superior to laparoscopy as it allows more precise identification and dissection of the oesophageal muscle fibres, which likely reduces the risk of inadvertent mucosal damage or incomplete myotomy.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37843105 · DOI · PMC10981992

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Evolving options in the management of esophageal perforation [5]
    Brinster CJ, Singhal S, Lee L, Marshall MB, Kaiser LR, Kucharczuk JC · Ann Thorac Surg · 2004 · cited 489 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Esophageal perforation: a continuing challenge [6]
    Jones WG, Ginsberg RJ · Ann Thorac Surg · 1992 · cited 235 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Esophageal emergencies: WSES guidelines [7]
    Chirica M, Kelly MD, Siboni S, Aiolfi A, Riva CG, Asti E, et al. · World J Emerg Surg · 2019 · cited 202 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforations in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of 75 studies [8]
    Biancari F, D'Andrea V, Paone R, Di Marco C, Savino G, Koivukangas V, et al. · World J Surg · 2013 · cited 183 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The role of esophageal stents in the management of esophageal anastomotic leaks and benign esophageal perforations [9]
    Dasari BV, Neely D, Kennedy A, Spence G, Rice P, Mackle E, et al. · Ann Surg · 2014 · cited 178 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Systematic review: temporary stent placement for benign rupture or anastomotic leak of the oesophagus [10]
    van Boeckel PG, Sijbring A, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD · Aliment Pharmacol Ther · 2011 · cited 173 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Søreide JA, Søreide JA, Viste A. Esophageal perforation: diagnostic work-up and clinical decision-making in the first 24 hours. . 2011. PMID 22035338 · DOI · PMC3219576
  2. Lange J, Kähler G, Bernhardt J, Knievel J, Dormann A, Hügle U, et al.. The VACStent trial: combined treatment of esophageal leaks by covered stent and endoscopic vacuum therapy. . 2023. PMID 36639580 · DOI · PMC10156910
  3. Han D, Huang Z, Xiang J, Li H, Hang J. The Role of Operation in the Treatment of Boerhaave's Syndrome. . 2018. PMID 30050944 · DOI · PMC6046182
  4. Nevins EJ, Greene K, Bawa S, Horgan L. Robotic Heller's cardiomyotomy for achalasia: early outcomes for a high-volume UK centre. . 2024. PMID 37843105 · DOI · PMC10981992
  5. Brinster CJ, Singhal S, Lee L, Marshall MB, Kaiser LR, Kucharczuk JC. Evolving options in the management of esophageal perforation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004. PMID 15063302 · DOI
  6. Jones WG, Ginsberg RJ. Esophageal perforation: a continuing challenge. Ann Thorac Surg. 1992. PMID 1489367 · DOI
  7. Chirica M, Kelly MD, Siboni S, Aiolfi A, Riva CG, Asti E, et al.. Esophageal emergencies: WSES guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. 2019. PMID 31164915 · DOI · PMC6544956
  8. Biancari F, D'Andrea V, Paone R, Di Marco C, Savino G, Koivukangas V, et al.. Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforations in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of 75 studies. World J Surg. 2013. PMID 23440483 · DOI
  9. Dasari BV, Neely D, Kennedy A, Spence G, Rice P, Mackle E, et al.. The role of esophageal stents in the management of esophageal anastomotic leaks and benign esophageal perforations. Ann Surg. 2014. PMID 24509201 · DOI
  10. van Boeckel PG, Sijbring A, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD. Systematic review: temporary stent placement for benign rupture or anastomotic leak of the oesophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011. PMID 21517921 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-11-04.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Esophageal FistulaDigestive System and Liver
  • Esophageal AchalasiaDigestive System and Liver
  • Esophageal Motility DisordersDigestive System and Liver
  • Gastroesophageal RefluxDigestive System and Liver
  • Tracheoesophageal FistulaRespiratory Medicine
  • Esophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaCancer and Oncology

All 66 articles in Digestive System and Liver →

At a glance

4,700
PubMed records on this heading
9%
published since 2020
426
review articles
17
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-11-04; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Esophageal FistulaDigestive System and Liver
  • Esophageal AchalasiaDigestive System and Liver
  • Esophageal Motility DisordersDigestive System and Liver
  • Gastroesophageal RefluxDigestive System and Liver
  • Tracheoesophageal FistulaRespiratory Medicine

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support