Esophageal emergencies : WSES guidelines

The esophagus traverses three body compartments (neck, thorax, and abdomen) and is surrounded at each level by vital organs. Injuries to the esophagus may be classified as foreign body ingestion, caustic ingestion, esophageal perforation, and esophageal trauma. These lesions can be life-threatening either by digestive contamination of surrounding structures in case of esophageal wall breach or concomitant damage of surrounding organs. Early diagnosis and timely therapeutic intervention are the keys of successful management.Peer reviewe

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

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

Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy, Pneumatic Dilatation, and Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia

Background: Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), pneumatic dilatation (PD), and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are common treatments for esophageal achalasia. Literature evidence is restricted to pairwise analysis and PD versus POEM comparison is missing. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to comprehensively compare outcomes within these three surgical approaches with those of esophageal achalasia. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were consulted. A systematic review and a fully Bayesian study level arm-based random effect NMA were performed. Results: Nineteen studies (14 observational and 5 randomized controlled trial) and 4407 patients were included. Overall, 50.4% underwent LHM, 42.8% PD, and 6.8% POEM. The postoperative dysphagia remission was statistically significantly improved in POEM compared with LHM and PD (risk ratio [RR] = 1.21; 95% credible intervals [CIs] = 1.04-1.47 and RR = 1.40; 95% CIs = 1.14-1.79, respectively). Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) rate was higher in POEM than in LHM and PD (RR = 1.75; 95% CIs = 1.35-2.03 and RR = 1.36; 95% CIs = 1.18-1.68, respectively). Postoperative Eckardt score was significantly lower in POEM than in LHM and PD (standardized mean difference (smd) = -0.6; 95% CIs = -1.4 to -0.2 and smd = -1.2; 95% CIs = -2.3 to -0.2, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found comparing LHM and PD in any of the analyzed outcomes. Conclusions: In the short-term follow-up, POEM seems to be associated with better dysphagia improvement and higher postoperative GERD than LHM and PD. The choice of the ideal initial management should be left to multidisciplinary team discussion and personalized on each patient basis