Background: Foreign body (FB) impaction accounts for 4% of emergency endoscopies in clinical practice. Flexible endoscopy (FE) is recommended as the first-line therapeutic option because it can be performed under sedation, is cost-effective, and is well tolerated. Rigid endoscopy (RE) under general anesthesia is less used but may be advantageous in some circumstances. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FE and RE in esophageal FB removal. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted matching the terms "Rigid endoscopy AND Flexible endoscopy AND foreign bod*". Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I 2 index and Cochrane Q test. Results: Five observational cohort studies, published between 1993 and 2015, matched the inclusion criteria. One thousand four hundred and two patients were included; FE was performed in 736 patients and RE in 666. Overall, 101 (7.2%) complications occurred. The most frequent complications were mucosal erosion (26.7%), mucosal edema (18.8%), and iatrogenic esophageal perforations (10.9%). Compared to FE, the estimated RE pooled success OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48-2.06; p=1.00). The pooled OR of iatrogenic perforation, other complications, and overall complications were 2.87 (95% CI 0.96-8.61; p=0.06), 1.09 (95% CI 0.38-3.18; p=0.87), and 1.50 (95% CI 0.53-4.25; p=0.44), respectively. There was no mortality. Conclusions: FE and RE are equally safe and effective for the removal of esophageal FB. To provide a tailored or crossover approach, patients should be managed in multidisciplinary centers where expertise in RE is also available. Formal training and certification in RE should probably be re-evaluated.

Flexible versus rigid endoscopy in the management of esophageal foreign body impaction : Systematic review and meta-analysis / D. Ferrari, A. Aiolfi, G. Bonitta, C.G. Riva, E. Rausa, S. Siboni, F. Toti, L. Bonavina. - In: WORLD JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY SURGERY. - ISSN 1749-7922. - 13:1(2018), pp. 42.1-42.9. [10.1186/s13017-018-0203-4]

Flexible versus rigid endoscopy in the management of esophageal foreign body impaction : Systematic review and meta-analysis

E. Rausa;F. Toti
Penultimo
;
L. Bonavina
Ultimo
2018

Abstract

Background: Foreign body (FB) impaction accounts for 4% of emergency endoscopies in clinical practice. Flexible endoscopy (FE) is recommended as the first-line therapeutic option because it can be performed under sedation, is cost-effective, and is well tolerated. Rigid endoscopy (RE) under general anesthesia is less used but may be advantageous in some circumstances. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FE and RE in esophageal FB removal. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted matching the terms "Rigid endoscopy AND Flexible endoscopy AND foreign bod*". Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I 2 index and Cochrane Q test. Results: Five observational cohort studies, published between 1993 and 2015, matched the inclusion criteria. One thousand four hundred and two patients were included; FE was performed in 736 patients and RE in 666. Overall, 101 (7.2%) complications occurred. The most frequent complications were mucosal erosion (26.7%), mucosal edema (18.8%), and iatrogenic esophageal perforations (10.9%). Compared to FE, the estimated RE pooled success OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48-2.06; p=1.00). The pooled OR of iatrogenic perforation, other complications, and overall complications were 2.87 (95% CI 0.96-8.61; p=0.06), 1.09 (95% CI 0.38-3.18; p=0.87), and 1.50 (95% CI 0.53-4.25; p=0.44), respectively. There was no mortality. Conclusions: FE and RE are equally safe and effective for the removal of esophageal FB. To provide a tailored or crossover approach, patients should be managed in multidisciplinary centers where expertise in RE is also available. Formal training and certification in RE should probably be re-evaluated.
Esophageal foreign body; Flexible endoscopy; Foreign body impaction; Iatrogenic esophageal perforation; Rigid endoscopy
Settore MED/18 - Chirurgia Generale
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s13017-018-0203-4.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 2.01 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.01 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/810722
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 18
  • Scopus 31
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 31
social impact