Background Anastomotic leakage (AL) after oesophagectomy and oesophageal perforations are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive endoscopy is often used as first-line treatment, particularly endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT). The aim was to assess the performance of the first commercially available endoluminal vacuum device (Eso-Sponge®) in the management of AL and perforation of the upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Methods The Eso-Sponge® registry was designed in 2014 as a prospective, observational, national, multicentre registry. Patients were recruited with either AL or perforation within the upper GIT. Data were collected with a standardized form and transferred into a web-based platform. Twenty hospitals were enrolled at the beginning of the study (registration number NCT02662777; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). The primary endpoint was successful closure of the oesophageal defect. Results Eleven out of 20 centres recruited patients. A total of 102 patients were included in this interim analysis; 69 patients with AL and 33 with a perforation were treated by EVT. In the AL group, a closure of 91 per cent was observed and 76 per cent was observed in the perforation group. The occurrence of mediastinitis (P = 0.002) and the location of the defect (P = 0.008) were identified as significant predictors of defect closure. Conclusions The Eso-Sponge® registry offers the opportunity to collate data on EVT with a uniform, commercially available product to improve standardization. Our data show that EVT with the Eso-Sponge® is an option for the management of AL and perforation within the upper GIT.

Introduction Gastric leaks constitute some of the most severe complications after obesity surgery. Resulting peritonitis can lead to inflammatory changes of the stomach wall and might necessitate drainage. The inflammatory changes make gastric leak treatment difficult. A common endoscopic approach of using stents causes the problem of inadequate leak sealing and the need for an external drainage. Based on promising results using endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for esophageal leaks, we implemented this concept for gastric leak treatment after bariatric surgery (Ahrens et al., Endoscopy 42(9):693–698, 2010; Schniewind et al., Surg Endosc 27(10):3883–3890, 2013). Methods We retrospectively analyzed data of 31 gastric leaks after bariatric surgery. For leak therapy management, we used revisional laparoscopy with suturing and drainage. EVT was added for persistent leaks in sixteen cases and was used in four cases as standalone therapy. Results Twenty-one gastric leaks occurred in 521 sleeve gastrectomies (leakage rate 4.0%), 9 in 441 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (leakage rate 2.3%), and 1 in 12 mini-bypasses. Eleven of these gastric leaks were detected within 2 days after bariatric surgery and successfully treated by revision surgery. Sixteen gastric leaks, re-operated later than 2 days, remained after revision surgery, and EVT was added. Without revision surgery, we performed EVT as standalone therapy in 4 patients with late gastric leaks. The EVT healing rate was 90% (18 of 20). In 2 patients with a late gastric leak in sleeve gastrectomy, neither revisional surgery, EVT, nor stent therapy was successful. EVT patients showed no complications related to EVT during follow-up. Conclusion EVT is highly beneficial in cases of gastric leaks in obesity surgery where local peritonitis is present. Revisional surgery was unsuccessful later than 2 days after primary surgery (16 of 16 cases). EVT shows a similar healing rate to stent therapy (80–100%) but a shorter duration of treatment. The advantages of EVT are endoscopic access, internal drainage, rapid granulation, and direct therapy control. In compartmentalized gastric leaks, EVT was successful as a standalone therapy without external drainage.

Perforations of the upper gastrointestinal tract are rare events but if present, are serious conditions. Timely diagnosis and therapeutic initiation are crucial for a beneficial patient outcome. In general, endoscopic and surgical approaches are suitable methods. Endoscopically, there are multiple methodologies available dependent on the extent of the laceration and ongoingly, more innovative techniques are being introduced. Smaller and acute lesions without significant amounts of contamination can be sufficiently treated with clipping devices. Larger defects can be treated by either endoscopic stenting or the more innovative approach of endoscopic vacuum therapy. The surgical approach is usually the option of last resort. Morbidity and mortality rates postoperatively are high, hence the indication for a surgical revision of upper gastrointestinal perforations must be strict and well weighted. In sum, to guarantee the most optimal outcome for the patient, it is crucial to pursue an interdisciplinary approach involving specialists from endoscopy, intensive care medicine, and surgery.