ArticleClinical endoscopy2026
Real-world management and in-hospital outcomes of foreign body-associated esophageal perforations in the United States: a national retrospective cohort study.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal perforations can be managed conservatively, endoscopically, or surgically. We aimed to characterize the outcomes of these approaches and assess the impact of intervention timing.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed hospitalizations in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2022 for foreign body-associated esophageal perforations. Patients were grouped into endoscopic, surgical, or conservative management. Outcomes included mortality, respiratory failure, sepsis, hemorrhage, parenteral nutrition, and gastrostomy.
resultsAmong the 2,045 patients, 145 (7.1%) underwent endoscopic management, 190 (9.3%) underwent surgical management, and 1,710 (83.6%) received conservative treatment. Food impaction accounted for 76% of foreign bodies. The mortality rates were 0%, 5.3%, and 2.9%, respectively. Respiratory failure occurred in 17.2% of endoscopically managed patients and 42.1% of surgically managed patients. Surgical cases had higher use of parenteral nutrition (15.8%) and gastrostomy (31.6%), whereas conservative management had the highest hemorrhage rate (18.1%). Intervention timing was not significantly associated with outcomes.
conclusionsMost foreign body-associated esophageal perforations are managed conservatively. Among patients selected for intervention, endoscopic management was associated with lower rates of mortality, selected complications, and healthcare utilization than surgery. These findings reflect clinical triage pathways and should be interpreted cautiously, given potential selection bias, confounding by indication, and administrative data limitations.
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.