BackgroundWe reviewed our experience with non-iatrogenic traumatic cervical esophageal perforations, paying particular attention to factors affecting the outcome of such cases.MethodsIn total, 30 patients treated surgically between 1980 and 2008 for non-iatrogenic traumatic cervical esophageal perforation in our clinic were reviewed.ResultsThere were 25 male and 5 female patients with a median age of 27.5 years. The type of injury was external trauma in 21 (70%) patients and endoluminal injury in the remaining 9 (30%) patients. The mechanism of injury was gunshot in 16 patients, stabbing in 4, falling in 1 (extraluminal injury), and foreign body in 9 (endoluminal injuries). The overall mortality rate was 16.6% (5/30). The mortality rate for extraluminal injuries was 19%, and for endoluminal injuries was 11.1%. Mortality in patients treated within 24 h of sustaining injury was substantially less than in those for whom diagnosis and treatment were delayed (12.5 and 21.4%, respectively). The mortality rate was 33.3% (3/9) for patients with tracheal injuries and 9.5% (2/21) for those without tracheal injuries.ConclusionsA treatment delay greater than 24 h, the presence of tracheal injury, or extraluminal perforation significantly affected the outcome of surgically treated non iatrogenic traumatic cervical esophageal perforation.

We analysed the inter-relationships of the cause and the type of trauma, the presence of pelvic fracture, the associated intraabdominal organ injuries, and the morbidity and mortality rates in 154 patients presenting and being treated for UGT between 1983 and 1997. The cause of injury was blunt in 77% of cases and penetrating in 13%. The most frequently injured organs were kidney followed by urethra and bladder. Bowels, liver and spleen were the most frequently associated injured organs. Moreover, bladder injuries were strongly associated with bowel injuries (p < 0.0001). Hemodynamically normal 49 children with minor or major kidney injuries were managed conservatively. Hemodynamically non-stable 11 patients were explored. The majority of urogenital injuries can be managed conservatively even when associated with intraabdominal organ injuries. Solid genitourinary organ injuries may accompany more frequently to intraperitoneal solid organ injury. Whereas, non-solid genitourinary organ injuries may more frequently associated with injuries of intraperitoneal hollow viscus.