Cargando…
Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Food bolus impaction is the most common form of esophageal foreign body impaction observed in adults. Clinical guidelines recommend using the push technique or retrieval methods in such cases. The push technique can cause injuries in certain clinical situations. Notably, conventiona...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6785424/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31280526 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2019.042 |
_version_ | 1783457885482647552 |
---|---|
author | Wahba, Mahmoud Habib, Ghada Mazny, Ahmed El Fawzi, May Elfeki, Mohamed A. Sabry, Seham ELbaz, Mahommad Nasr, Sayed M Seif El |
author_facet | Wahba, Mahmoud Habib, Ghada Mazny, Ahmed El Fawzi, May Elfeki, Mohamed A. Sabry, Seham ELbaz, Mahommad Nasr, Sayed M Seif El |
author_sort | Wahba, Mahmoud |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND/AIMS: Food bolus impaction is the most common form of esophageal foreign body impaction observed in adults. Clinical guidelines recommend using the push technique or retrieval methods in such cases. The push technique can cause injuries in certain clinical situations. Notably, conventional retrieval methods are time and effort consuming. Cap-assisted endoscopic extraction of an impacted food bolus is an easy and effective technique; however, more data are needed for its validation. This study compared the capassisted extraction technique with conventional methods. METHODS: This prospective observational multicenter study compared the success and en bloc removal rates, total procedure time, and adverse events in both techniques.. RESULTS: The study included 303 patients who underwent food bolus extraction. The push technique was used in 87 patients (28.7%) and a retrieval procedure in 216 patients (71.3%). Cap-assisted extraction was performed in 106 patients and retrieval using conventional methods in 110 patients. The cap-assisted technique was associated with a higher rate of en bloc removal (80.2% vs. 15%, p<0.01), shorter procedure time (6.9±3.5 min vs. 15.7±4.1 min, p<0.001), and fewer adverse events (0/106 vs. 9/110, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cap-assisted extraction showed no adverse events, higher efficacy, and a shorter procedure time compared with conventional retrieval procedures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6785424 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67854242019-10-17 Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study Wahba, Mahmoud Habib, Ghada Mazny, Ahmed El Fawzi, May Elfeki, Mohamed A. Sabry, Seham ELbaz, Mahommad Nasr, Sayed M Seif El Clin Endosc Original Article BACKGROUND/AIMS: Food bolus impaction is the most common form of esophageal foreign body impaction observed in adults. Clinical guidelines recommend using the push technique or retrieval methods in such cases. The push technique can cause injuries in certain clinical situations. Notably, conventional retrieval methods are time and effort consuming. Cap-assisted endoscopic extraction of an impacted food bolus is an easy and effective technique; however, more data are needed for its validation. This study compared the capassisted extraction technique with conventional methods. METHODS: This prospective observational multicenter study compared the success and en bloc removal rates, total procedure time, and adverse events in both techniques.. RESULTS: The study included 303 patients who underwent food bolus extraction. The push technique was used in 87 patients (28.7%) and a retrieval procedure in 216 patients (71.3%). Cap-assisted extraction was performed in 106 patients and retrieval using conventional methods in 110 patients. The cap-assisted technique was associated with a higher rate of en bloc removal (80.2% vs. 15%, p<0.01), shorter procedure time (6.9±3.5 min vs. 15.7±4.1 min, p<0.001), and fewer adverse events (0/106 vs. 9/110, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cap-assisted extraction showed no adverse events, higher efficacy, and a shorter procedure time compared with conventional retrieval procedures. Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2019-09 2019-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6785424/ /pubmed/31280526 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2019.042 Text en Copyright © 2019 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Wahba, Mahmoud Habib, Ghada Mazny, Ahmed El Fawzi, May Elfeki, Mohamed A. Sabry, Seham ELbaz, Mahommad Nasr, Sayed M Seif El Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study |
title | Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study |
title_full | Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study |
title_fullStr | Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study |
title_short | Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study |
title_sort | cap-assisted technique versus conventional methods for esophageal food bolus extraction: a comparative study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6785424/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31280526 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2019.042 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wahbamahmoud capassistedtechniqueversusconventionalmethodsforesophagealfoodbolusextractionacomparativestudy AT habibghada capassistedtechniqueversusconventionalmethodsforesophagealfoodbolusextractionacomparativestudy AT maznyahmedel capassistedtechniqueversusconventionalmethodsforesophagealfoodbolusextractionacomparativestudy AT fawzimay capassistedtechniqueversusconventionalmethodsforesophagealfoodbolusextractionacomparativestudy AT elfekimohameda capassistedtechniqueversusconventionalmethodsforesophagealfoodbolusextractionacomparativestudy AT sabryseham capassistedtechniqueversusconventionalmethodsforesophagealfoodbolusextractionacomparativestudy AT elbazmahommad capassistedtechniqueversusconventionalmethodsforesophagealfoodbolusextractionacomparativestudy AT nasrsayedmseifel capassistedtechniqueversusconventionalmethodsforesophagealfoodbolusextractionacomparativestudy |