Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T02:52:48.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To flex or not to flex: oesophageal soft food bolus obstruction in the modern age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2024

Christy M Moen Open the ORCID record for Christy M Moen [Opens in a new window] ,
Hiteshkumar Tailor Open the ORCID record for Hiteshkumar Tailor [Opens in a new window] ,
Siggi Hammond ,
Bruce Hay ,
Nimmi Peedika ,
A E Louise McMurran ,
Xin Yin Choo  and
Murray Stewart
Christy M Moen*
Affiliation:
ENT, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK
Hiteshkumar Tailor
Affiliation:
ENT, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK
Siggi Hammond
Affiliation:
ENT, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK
Bruce Hay
Affiliation:
ENT, NHS Lanarkshire, Airdrie, UK
Nimmi Peedika
Affiliation:
ENT, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK
A E Louise McMurran
Affiliation:
ENT, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK
Xin Yin Choo
Affiliation:
ENT, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK
Murray Stewart
Affiliation:
ENT, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK
*
Corresponding author: Christy Maurice Moen; Email: christy@moen.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Oesophageal soft food bolus obstruction is a common presentation to emergency departments. Often these patients are given medication with little evidence of efficacy. Although many cases self-resolve, some require removal of the obstruction. Delay in removal can lead to complications such as oesophageal perforation and mediastinitis. Traditionally, removal was performed by ENT surgeons using rigid oesophagoscopy, but oesophago-gastro duodenoscopy offers a safer alternative that does not require a general anaesthetic.

Method

The current performance, pathways and outcomes of patients attending emergency departments across three health boards in Scotland were reviewed.

Results

In total, 313 patients admitted for oesophageal soft food bolus obstruction were identified. Mixed practice for a single common presentation was observed. In addition, it was found that the majority of patients are already managed by surgery and gastroenterology services with good outcomes and low morbidity.

Conclusion

Patients presenting with soft food bolus obstruction should be referred to local surgery and gastroenterology services in the first instance.

Keywords

Otolaryngologyendoscopygastrointestinal diseasesgeneral surgery
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Christy Maurice Moen takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Data presented at ENT Scotland and Scottish National Video Conference ENT Audit Meeting, 8 November 2019, Stirling, Scotland.

References

Scott-Brown, WG, Gleeson, M. Scott-Brown's Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. London: Hodder Arnold, 2008Google Scholar
Loh, KS, Tan, LK, Smith, JD, Yeoh, KH, Dong, F. Complications of foreign bodies in the esophagus. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:613–16Google Scholar
Leopard, D, Fishpool, S, Winter, S. The management of oesophageal soft food bolus obstruction: a systematic review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011;93:441–4Google Scholar
Gmeiner, D, von Rahden, BHA, Meco, C, Hutter, J, Oberascher, G, Stein, HJ. Flexible versus rigid endoscopy for treatment of foreign body impaction in the esophagus. Surg Endosc 2007;21:2026–9Google Scholar
Boyd, AD. Chevalier Jackson: the father of American bronchoesophagoscopy. Ann Thorac Surg 1994;57:502–5Google Scholar
Longstreth, GF, Longstreth, KJ, Yao, JF. Esophageal food impaction: epidemiology and therapy. A retrospective, observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:193–8Google Scholar
Hazen, SE, Larsen, PD, Martin, JLH. General anesthesia and elderly surgical patients. AORN J 1997;65:815–21Google Scholar
Wennervaldt, K, Melchiors, J. Risk of perforation using rigid oesophagoscopy in the distal part of oesophagus. Dan Med J 2012;59:A4528Google Scholar
Chirica, M, Kelly, MD, Siboni, S, Aiolfi, A, Riva, CG, Asti, E et al. Esophageal emergencies: WSES guidelines. World J Emerg Surg 2019;14:26Google Scholar
Desai, TK, Stecevic, V, Chang, CH, Goldstein, NS, Badizadegan, K, Furuta, GT. Association of eosinophilic inflammation with esophageal food impaction in adults. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:795–801Google Scholar
Ntuli, Y, Bough, I, Wilson, M. Recognising eosinophilic oesophagitis as a cause of food bolus obstruction. Frontline Gastroenterol 2020;11:11–15Google Scholar
Spergel, JM, Dellon, ES, Liacouras, CA, Hirano, I, Molina-Infante, J, Bredenoord, AJ et al. Summary of the updated international consensus diagnostic criteria for eosinophilic esophagitis: AGREE conference. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2018;121:281–4Google Scholar
Cook, IJ. Diagnostic evaluation of dysphagia. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;5:393–403Google Scholar
Ko, HH, Enns, R. Review of food bolus management. Can J Gastroenterol 2008;22:805–8Google Scholar
Hardman, J, Sharma, N, Smith, J, Nankivell, P. Conservative management of oesophageal soft food bolus impaction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;(5):CD007352Google Scholar
Scott-Brown, WG. Scott-Brown's Otolaryngology, 6th edn. CRC Press, 1996;3928Google Scholar
Tibbling, L, Stenquist, M. Foreign bodies in the esophagus. A study of causative factors. Dysphagia 1991;6:224–7Google Scholar
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. MHRA safety alert: hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan) injection. Drug Ther Bull 2017;55:51Google Scholar