ArticleCureus2025
Oesophageal Soft Food Bolus Obstruction: A Retrospective Review of the Management of 384 Cases in Two UK Hospitals.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives Oesophageal soft food bolus obstruction (OSFBO) is a frequent emergency presentation to otolaryngology, gastroenterology, and general surgery departments. While many cases resolve without intervention, others require urgent endoscopy, with no UK consensus on referral pathways, timing, or technique. This study evaluates the real-world management of OSFBO across two UK hospitals over 12 years, examining rates of conservative resolution, procedural intervention, associated complications, and the diagnostic utility of post-resolution contrast swallow imaging. Methods A retrospective review of all adult patients (≥16 years) presenting with OSFBO between August 2008 and August 2020 at one tertiary and one district general hospital was conducted. Sharp or non-organic foreign body cases were excluded. Data were collected from electronic records, anonymized, and analysed using IBM SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Categorical and continuous variables were compared using appropriate statistical tests. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis assessed time to resolution, and logistic regression (visualized via a forest plot) identified predictors of procedural intervention. Results Among 384 cases, 65% (n = 249) resolved with conservative management. Of the 135 patients requiring intervention, 58% (n = 70) underwent rigid oesophagoscopy, and 42% (n = 51) had flexible oesophagoscopy. One case of oesophageal perforation occurred following rigid oesophagoscopy (1.4% complication rate). Flexible nasendoscopy dislodged the bolus in 3% (n = 7) of all cases. Hyoscine butylbromide was used in 71% (n = 193), with 32% (n = 62) subsequently requiring intervention, compared to 6% (n = 5) in those not receiving it. Plain radiographs were diagnostic in only 6% (n = 7) of 122 cases. Post-resolution contrast swallow imaging was performed in 20% (n = 75), with 48% (n = 36) revealing oesophageal abnormalities such as webs, achalasia, and strictures. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed most conservative resolutions occurred within 24-48 hours. Regression analysis identified age and absence of hyoscine as significant predictors of intervention. Conclusions The majority of OSFBO cases resolve without the need for invasive procedures. Rigid and flexible oesophagoscopy are both effective, though rigid carries a higher risk of complications. Flexible nasendoscopy may offer a low-risk, bedside option for select patients. Post-resolution contrast swallow studies have a high diagnostic yield and should be considered in follow-up. These findings support the need for national guidelines and further prospective research into pharmacological and procedural strategies for OSFBO.
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.