Successful treatment of cervical esophageal leakage by endoscopic-vacuum assisted closure therapy

Table 1 Characteristics of three patients who underwent endoscopic-vacuum assisted closure treatment

Patient	Sex	Age, yr	Diagnosis	Surgical procedure	Cause of leakage	Distance from the dental arch, cm	Time interval from diagnosis to start of E-VAC therapy, d	Time interval from surgery to start of E-VAC therapy, d
1	Male	80	Liposarcoma	Thoracic esophageal resection	Anastomotic insufficiency	17	11	25
2	Male	71	Zenker´s diverticulum	Diverticulectomy and myotomy	Anastomotic insufficiency	17	0	13
3	Male	69	Zenker´s diverticulum	Mucomyotomy	Iatrogenic perforation	19	0	2

E-VAC: Endoscopic-vacuum assisted closure.

Table 2 Endoscopic-vacuum assisted closure treatment characteristics

Patient	Treatment type	Sponge exchanges, n	E-VAC treatment duration, d	Hospitalization duration, d	Endoscopic follow-up2 duration, d	Feeding method
11	Intracavitary/	1 × 9	1 × 34	108	None	PEG-J tube
	intraluminal	1 × 3	1 × 15
2	Intracavitary/	5	19	42	47	Intravenously
	intraluminal
3	Intracavitary/	7	29	46	206	PEG-J tube
	intraluminal

¹Patient did not achieve complete healing after the first treatment cycle and underwent a second treatment;

²Days after sponge removal. E-VAC: Endoscopic-vacuum assisted closure; PEG-J tube: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension.

Table 3 Inflammation markers monitored during the endoscopic-vacuum assisted closure treatment

Patient	WBC		CRP
	1st sponge placement	Sponge removal	1st sponge placement	Sponge removal
1	11.6	4.3	152	34
2	8.2	8.8	244	34
3	14.3	9.9	296	3

WBC: White blood cell count, normal range: 4.4-11.3 Tsd/μL; CRP: C-reactive protein, normal range: < 8 mg/L.