Table 2. Individual patient profile and treatment details.

Year	Case No.	Age/ Sex	Type of intervention before referral	Time of presentation (Early vs. Delayed)	Location of perforation3	Perforation size	Contained perforation (Yes/No)	Site of pleural collection	PPSS	Details of primary intervention(s)	Re-intervention
2005	1	67/M	Non-referral	Early	Lower thoracic, 2 cm above GEJ	3 cm	Yes	None1’	4	Laparotomy, trans-hiatal primary repair, omento­plasty and FJ	Tube thoracostomy for left-sided pleural effu­sion1’
2008	2	80/F	Right-sided, tube thoracos­tomy	Delayed	Lower thoracic	N/l	No	Right	10	Right thoracotomy, drainage, decortication and FJ	None
	3	62/M	Left-sided, tube thoracostomy	Delayed	Lower thoracic	N/A	Yes	Left	3	Left-sided, tube tho­racostomy, gastrostomy and FJ	None
2010	4	28/M	Non-referral	Delayed	Lower thoracic	N/A	Yes	Left	9	Left-sided, tube tho­racostomy, FJ	None
2011	5	47/M	Right thoracotomy, pleural drainage alone	Delayed	Lower thoracic	N/M	No	Right	9	Right thoracotomy, drainage, decortication, esophageal stenting (FCSEMS) and FJ	Stent migration ~^· endoscopic repositioning
	6	41/M	Left-sided, tube thoracostomy	Delayed	Lower thoracic, 2 cm above GEJ	3 cm	No	Left	10	Laparotomy, trans-hiatal repair over aT-tube, left thoracotomy, drainage, decortication, gastrosto­my and FJ	None
2012	7	61/M	Non-referral	Delayed	Lower thoracic, 37-39 cm	2 cm	No	Left	6	Left-sided, tube tho­racostomy, esophageal stenting (FCSEMS), FJ	None
2013	8	50/M	Non-referral	Delayed	Lower thoracic	3 cm	No	Left	11	Laparotomy, trans-hiatal repair over aT-tube, left thoracotomy, drainage, decortication, gastrosto­my and FJ	None
	9	47/M	Non-referral	Delayed	Lower thoracic, 2 cm above the GEJ	3 cm	No	Bilateral	12	Laparotomy, trans-hiatal primary repair, omento­plasty, bilateral thoraco­scopic drainage, gastros­tomy and FJ	None
2014	10	55/M	Right thoracot­omy, pleural drainage	Delayed	Lower thoracic, 34-36 cm	2 cm	No	Left	6	Left-side, tube thoracos­tomy, esophageal stent­ing (ECSEMS) and EJ	Left-sided residual pleural collection ~^· image-guided drainage
2016	11	70/M	Non-referral	Delayed	Lower thoracic, just above the GEJ	1 cm	No	Left	12	On-table endoscopy, left-thoracoscopic drain­age, decortication and EJC	Post-op contrast study showed a leak —> stented (ECSEMS) stent migration -^· endoscopic repositioning
2018	12	37/F	Non-referral	Early	Lower thoracic, 31-33 cm	2 cm	No	Right	8	On-table endoscopy, clipping of the perfora­tion, right-thoracoscopic drainage and EJ	Persistent leak -^· stented (FCSEMS) stent migration -»endoscopic repositioning
PPSS: Pittsburgh perforation severity score, M: Male, F: Female, GEJ: Gastro-esophageal junction, FJ: Feeding jejunostomy, FCSEMS: Fully covered self-expanding metal stent, N/l: Not identified (The perforation is not identified intra-op), N/A: Not applicable (No endoscopy or esophageal surgery attempted; hence size of the perforation cannot be commented on), N/M: Not mentioned (Although perforation identified either in endoscopy or intra-op, its size was not mentioned). a:The location of the perforation was identified using either radiological or endoscopic or intra-op assessment or their combination b: Pleural effusion developed following the primary intervention, but there was no evidence of a postoperative esophageal leak in the re-imaging c: On-table endoscopy showed an erosion in the lower thoracic esophagus, but the CT showed no obvious contrast leak and the perforation was not identified intra-op; hence stenting was not considered during the index operation.