Cargando…

Cap-assisted endoscopic treatment of esophageal food bolus impaction and/or foreign body ingestion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Esophageal food bolus and/or foreign body (FB) impaction is a common gastrointestinal emergency. This meta-analysis reports on the pooled outcomes of cap-assisted endoscopic removal of esophageal FB. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to February...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mohan, Babu P., Bapaye, Jay, Hamaad Rahman, Syed, Loganathan, Priyadarshini, Muthusamy, Arunkumar, Ramai, Daryl, Ponnada, Suresh, Chandan, Saurabh, Fang, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9648521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36406971
http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2022.0749
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Esophageal food bolus and/or foreign body (FB) impaction is a common gastrointestinal emergency. This meta-analysis reports on the pooled outcomes of cap-assisted endoscopic removal of esophageal FB. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to February 2022) to identify studies reporting on the use of a cap in the endoscopic treatment of esophageal FB ingestion. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD), and I(2) values were used to assess the heterogeneity. RESULTS: Six studies were analyzed that included 677 patients treated with cap-assisted and 694 with conventional endoscopy. The cap-assisted method demonstrated statistically significant superiority regarding technical success (pooled OR 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-26.9; P=0.004), en bloc removal (pooled OR 26.6, 95%CI 17.6-40.2; P<0.001), as well as a significantly shorter procedure time (4.6 min, 95%CI -6.5 to -2.8; P<0.001), compared to conventional methods. Better technical success was achieved with the cap-assisted method performed under anesthesia (OR 8.7, 95%CI 1.6-47.7; P=0.01); however, a shorter procedure time was noted for the cap-assisted method without anesthesia (MD -1.5, 95%CI -2.7 to -0.4; P=0.01). Pooled adverse events were comparable. Pooled OR for mucosal tear was significantly lower with cap in food bolus impaction (OR 0.07, 95%CI 0.01-0.38; P=0.02). CONCLUSION: Cap-assisted endoscopic removal of esophageal FB is associated with better technical success and en bloc removal, and a shorter procedure time compared to conventional methods, with comparable adverse events.