ArticleZeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie2025
Food impactions in the esophagus: incidence, causes, and treatment.
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food impactions in the esophagus are gastroenterologic emergencies. Their incidence is suspected to increase. Standard therapy is endoscopic removal. According to European guidelines from 2016, gently pushing the food forward with the endoscope is safe and efficient. This has recently been doubted, and a retrograde extraction of the food bolus was supposed to be safer.We retrospectively analyzed all food impactions in our database over 16 years regarding incidence per year, age, sex, underlying disease, method of removal, success rate, and safety.From 2008 to 2024, 99 patients were included. Incidence of food impactions increased logarithmically from one per year to 22 per year (p < 0.001). Seventy-nine patients were male (80%; p < 0.001). Underlying diseases were reflux-associated lesions, eosinophilic esophagitis, pseudo-diverticulosis, hernia, achalasia, candidiasis, and others. Fifty-five were pushed forward prior to 2016, afterwards it were 74 (56% and 75% respectively; p < 0.001). Success rate was 100 percent for all techniques. We observed two minor adverse events in the forward-pushing group vs. one in the extraction group (not significant).Our data confirms that food obstructions are on the rise and that the vast majority of patients are male. There is no typical underlying disease but a wide variety of rare diseases which together form the basis for the increase. Pushing forward is as safe as is extracting the food, so we see no necessity to change the existing guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.