Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 195–198

The “Steakhouse syndrome”

Primary and definitive diagnosis and therapy
  • J. Stadler
  • A. H. Hölscher
  • H. Feussner
  • J. Dittler
  • J. R. Siewert
Original Articles


Over a period of 5 years, 28 instances of acute food impaction of the esophagus were documented in 26 patients at our institution. In all patients the impacted bolus was successfully removed without complication using a flexible endoscope. Underlying diseases were identified during primary endoscopy in 31% of the cases. Further diagnostic workup was performed in all but 5 of the patients. After adequate evaluation pathologic findings were demonstrated in 90% of the cases (38% malignant and 52% benign diseases). Long-term therapy was deemed necessary in 17 of these 21 patients. Operative intervention was indicated in 4 cases, 2 of which were for malignant tumors. Acute food impaction should always be regarded as a symptom of esophageal disorders. In patients with esophageal cancer or other mediastinal tumors bolus impaction generally indicates an advanced tumor stage.

Key words

Food impaction of the esophagus Endoscopy Esophageal dysfunction Malignant tumors 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bortolotti M, Labo G (1981) Clinical and manometric effects of Nifedipine in patients with esophageal achalasia. Gastroenterology 80: 39–44Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedland GW (1983) The treatment of acute esophageal food impaction. Radiology 149: 601–602Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hargrove MD, Boyce HW (1970) Meat impaction of the esophagus. Arch Intern Med 125: 277–281Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holsinger JW, Fuson RL, Sealy WC (1968) Esophageal perforation following meat impaction and papain ingestion. JAMA 204: 188–189Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kleinmann MS (1976) Management of foreign bodies in the esophagus. JAMA 236: 2054Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nighbert E, Dorton H, Griffin WO (1968) Enzymatic relief of the “Steakhouse syndrome”. Am J Surg 116: 467–469Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nixon GW (1979) Foley catheter method of foreign body removal: extension of applications. AJR 132: 441–442Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norton RA, King GD (1963) “Steakhouse syndrome”: the symptomatic lower esophageal ring. Lahey Clin Found Bull 13: 55–59Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palmer ED (1976) Backyard barbecue syndrome. JAMA 235: 2637–2638Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rice BT, Spiegel PK, Dombrowski PJ (1983) Acute esophageal food impaction treated by gas-forming agents. Radiology 146: 299–301Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Selivanov V (1984) Management of foreign body ingestion. Ann Surg 199: 187–191Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siewert JR, Lepsien G, Schattenmann G, Weiser HF (1980) Therapieergebnisse peptischer Oesophagusstenosen. Langenbecks Arch Chir 353: 155–170Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith JC, Janower ML, Geiger AH (1986) Use of glucagon and gas-forming agents in acute esophageal food impaction. Radiology 159: 567–568Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trenkner SW (1983) Esophageal food impaction: treatment with glucagon. Radiology 149: 401–403Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vizcarrondo FJ, Brady PG, Nord HJ (1983) Foreign bodies in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Gastrointest Endosc 29: 208–210Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yackee J, Lipson A, Wassermann AG (1986) Electrocardiographic changes suggestive of cardiac ischemia in a patient with esophageal food impaction. JAMA 255: 2065–2066Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Stadler
    • 1
  • A. H. Hölscher
    • 1
  • H. Feussner
    • 1
  • J. Dittler
    • 1
  • J. R. Siewert
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinikum rechts der IsarChirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik der Technischen UniversitätMünchen 80Germany

Personalised recommendations