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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wahba, Mahmoud, Habib, Ghada, Mazny, Ahmed El, Fawzi, May, Elfeki, Mohamed A., Sabry, Seham, ELbaz, Mahommad, Nasr, Sayed M Seif El
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