Comparison of Cap-Assisted vs Conventional Endoscopic Technique for Management of Food Bolus Impaction in the Esophagus: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

[Bolus obstruction within the esophagus - an analysis over 5 years]

BACKGROUND

The removal of bolus impaction within the esophagus is an indication for emergency endoscopy. The current guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends gently pushing the bolus into the stomach. This view is discerned by many endoscopists because of the increased risk of complications. In addition, the use of an endoscopic cap for bolus removal is not mentioned.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a retrospective analysis from 2017 to 2021 we investigated 66 adults and 11 children with acute bolus impaction within the esophagus.

RESULTS

Eosinophilic esophagitis, reflux esophagitic /peptic stenosis and Schatzki Ring caused 57.6%, esophageal and bronchial carcinoma 18%, esophageal motility disorders 4.5%, Zenkers diverticulum 1.5% and radiation esophagitis 1.5% of the bolus obstructions. The reason remained unclear in 16.7% of the cases. The spectrum was comparable in children with additional 2 cases with esophageal atresia and stenosis. The reason was unclear in 2 cases. Removal of bolus impaction was successful in 92.4% in adults and 100% in children. Bolus obstruction in adults was successfully removed solely by endoscopic cap in 57.6% and 75% in children. Pushing the bolus into the stomach without disintegration was possible in only 9% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Flexible endoscopy is an effective ermergency intervention for removal of bolus obstruction within the esophagus. Uncontrolled pushing the bolus into the stomach without view cannot be recommended. An endoscopic cap is a good extension for safe bolus removal.

Efficacy of cap-assisted endoscopy for the visualization of the major duodenal papilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The current standard of practice is to use a duodenoscope for the evaluation of the major duodenal papilla (MDP). Recently, cap-assisted endoscopy (CAE), which uses a transparent cap at the tip of a standard front-viewing endoscope, has emerged as an alternative.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in several databases from inception to January 2023 to identify studies evaluating the efficacy of CAE for the evaluation of the MDP.

RESULTS

Nine studies including 806 patients met our inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of technical success for CAE was 93.2% (95% confidence interval, 85.6-96.9; I2 = 84.6%). A subgroup analysis comparing CAE with a standard endoscope showed higher odds for the evaluation of the MDP with CAE (but not a duodenoscope, which was better than CAE) with an odds ratio of 57.294 (95% confidence interval, 17.767-184.755; I2 = 45.303%).

CONCLUSIONS

CAE offers a significant advantage with high rates of complete MDP evaluation compared with standard forward-viewing endoscopy. However, CAE is associated with lower rates of success when compared with side-viewing endoscopes.

Enhanced suction for removal of esophageal food impaction

Video 1Enhanced suction for removal of esophageal food impaction.

Cap-assisted endoscopy for esophageal foreign bodies: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal foreign bodies are common around the world. Newer approaches, such as cap-assisted endoscopy, have been introduced as an alternative to conventional methods. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis ono cap-assisted endoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for removal of esophageal foreign bodies.

AIM

To investigated the effectiveness of cap-assisted endoscopy with conventional endoscopy.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed (December 2021). For esophageal foreign body removal, cap-assisted endoscopy was compared to conventional endoscopy for procedure time, technical success of the procedure, time of foreign body retrieval, en bloc removal, and adverse event rate using odds ratio and mean difference.

RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 1305). Higher odds of technical success (P = 0.002) and en bloc removal (P < 0.01) and lower odds of adverse events (P = 0.02) and foreign body removal time (P < 0.01) were observed with cap-assisted endoscopy as compared to conventional techniques.

CONCLUSION

For esophageal foreign bodies, the technique of cap-assisted endoscopy demonstrated increased en bloc removal and technical success with decreased time and adverse events as compared to conventional techniques.

Endoscopy in Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic allergen-mediated clinicopathologic condition that currently requires esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies and histologic evaluation to diagnose and monitor its progress. This state-of-the art review outlines the pathophysiology of EoE, reviews the application of endoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool, and discusses potential complications related to therapeutic endoscopic interventions. It also introduces recent innovations that can enhance the endoscopist's ability to diagnose and monitor EoE with minimally invasive procedures and perform therapeutic maneuvers more safely and effectively.

Cap-assisted endoscopy for esophageal foreign bodies: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal foreign bodies are common around the world. Newer approaches, such as cap-assisted endoscopy, have been introduced as an alternative to conventional methods. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis ono cap-assisted endoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for removal of esophageal foreign bodies.

AIM

To investigated the effectiveness of cap-assisted endoscopy with conventional endoscopy.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed (December 2021). For esophageal foreign body removal, cap-assisted endoscopy was compared to conventional endoscopy for procedure time, technical success of the procedure, time of foreign body retrieval, en bloc removal, and adverse event rate using odds ratio and mean difference.

RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 1305). Higher odds of technical success (P = 0.002) and en bloc removal (P < 0.01) and lower odds of adverse events (P = 0.02) and foreign body removal time (P < 0.01) were observed with cap-assisted endoscopy as compared to conventional techniques.

CONCLUSION

For esophageal foreign bodies, the technique of cap-assisted endoscopy demonstrated increased en bloc removal and technical success with decreased time and adverse events as compared to conventional techniques.

Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Esophageal Foreign Body Removal Is Safe and Efficacious Compared to Conventional Methods

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal foreign body impaction (FBI) is a commonly encountered gastrointestinal emergency requiring immediate intervention. Foreign bodies can be composed of food, commonly referred to as a "food bolus" (FB), or other matter (non-food). We aim to conduct systematic review and meta-analysis to compare cap-assisted and conventional endoscopic techniques for removal of esophageal FBI.

METHODS

A comprehensive search technique was utilized to identify studies that used capped endoscopic devices to remove FB or other esophageal foreign bodies. The primary outcomes were the technical success rate, rate of en bloc retrieval, and procedure time. Secondary outcomes were overall adverse events, bleeding, mucosal tears, and perforation.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 1407 patients were included. The mean patient age was 55.3 (SD ± 7.2) years and 44.8% of patients were male. There were two RCTs and five observational studies among the included studies. The technical success rate was significantly higher in the cap-assisted group compared to the conventional group (OR 3.47, CI 1.68-7.168, I² = 0%, p =  < 0.001), as well as the en bloc retrieval rate (OR 26.90, CI 17.82-40.60, I² = 0%, p = 0.001). There was a trend towards lower procedural time for the cap-assisted group compared to the conventional group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (MD - 10.997, CI - 22.78-0.786, I² = 99.9%, p = 0.06). The overall adverse events were significantly lower in the cap-assisted group compared to the conventional group (OR 0.118, CI 0.018-0.792, I² = 81.79%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The cap-assisted technique has improved efficacy and safety. To confirm these results, larger randomized trials are warranted.