Abstract
Background
The use of either flexible endoscopy (FE) or rigid endoscopy (RE) for removal of ingested foreign bodies (FBs) impacted in the esophagus is still discussed controversially.
Methods
We report a consecutive series of 139 patients with FB impaction in the esophagus. During a 6-year period, 69 men and 70 women (median age, 64 [0.7–97] years) requiring removal of an impacted FB underwent either RE (n = 63) in the Otolaryngology Department of our hospital or FE (n = 76) in the Surgical Endoscopy Unit.
Results
Foreign body removal was equally effective with FE (success rate 93.4%) and RE (95.2%, p = n.s.). The cases in which foreign body removal failed (5 FE cases [6.6%] and 3 RE cases [4.8%]) were all subsequently successfully managed with “conversion” and use of the other technique. No severe complications occurred when FB removal was attempted with FE (0 of 76 cases; 0.0%), whereas RE was associated with esophageal rupture requiring immediate surgical intervention in 2 of 63 cases (3.2%; p < 0.002). Patient comfort differed significantly between the two procedures (p < 0.0001); RE was always performed under general anesthesia (100.0%), whereas only a minority of patients undergoing FE required general anesthesia (13.0%; p < 0.0001) or mild analgosedation (20.0%). The better patient comfort with FE was also reflected in a significantly lower rate of dysphagia (15%) compared to RE (48%; p < 0.0001). Rigid endoscopy was more frequently used in removal of FBs of the upper esophagus (p < 0.0001), whereas FE was the predominate approach to FBs in the lower esophagus (p < 0.0001).
Conclusions
A tailored approach to treatment of FB impaction is recommended. Because of the lower rate of severe complications, better patient comfort with a lower rate of dysphagia, and lack of requirement for general anesthesia, FE should be the “first line” approach to FBs, although RE has its place as the “second line” therapy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berggreen PJ, Harrison E, Sanowski RA, Ingebo K, Noland B, Zierer S (1993) Techniques and complications of esophageal foreign body extraction in children and adults. Gastrointest Endosc 39:626–630
Lam HC, Woo JK, van Hasselt CA (2001) Management of ingested foreign bodies: a retrospective review of 5240 patients. J Laryngol Otol 115:954–957
Mosca S, Manes G, Martino R, Amitrano L, Bottino V, Bove A, Camera A, De Nucci C, Di Costanzo G, Guardascione M, Lampasi F, Picascia S, Picciotto FP, Riccio E, Rocco VP, Uomo G, Balzano A (2001) Endoscopic management of foreign bodies in the upper gastrointestinal tract: report on a series of 414 adult patients. Endoscopy 33:692–696
Simpson GT (1984) Rigid vs. flexible bronchoscopy for foreign-body aspiration. N Engl J Med 310:1190–1191
von Rahden BH, Becker I, Stein HJ (2004) Esophageal perforation by portions of a wild boar. Zentralbl Chir 129:314–316
von Rahden BH, Feith M, Dittler HJ, Stein HJ (2002) Cervical esophageal perforation with severe mediastinitis due to an impacted dental prosthesis. Dis Esophagus 15:340–344
Webb WA (1995) Management of foreign bodies of the upper gastrointestinal tract: update. Gastrointest Endosc 41:39–51
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gmeiner, D., von Rahden, B.H.A., Meco, C. et al. Flexible versus rigid endoscopy for treatment of foreign body impaction in the esophagus. Surg Endosc 21, 2026–2029 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9252-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9252-6