A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study. | LitMetric

Cap-Assisted Technique versus Conventional Methods for Esophageal Food Bolus Extraction: A Comparative Study.

Clin Endosc

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cairo University, Kasr Alainy Faculty of Medicine, Cairo, Egypt.

Published: September 2019

Background/aims: Food bolus impaction is the most common form of esophageal foreign body impaction observed in adults. Clinical guidelines recommend using the push technique or retrieval methods in such cases. The push technique can cause injuries in certain clinical situations. Notably, conventional retrieval methods are time and effort consuming. Cap-assisted endoscopic extraction of an impacted food bolus is an easy and effective technique; however, more data are needed for its validation. This study compared the capassisted extraction technique with conventional methods.

Methods: This prospective observational multicenter study compared the success and en bloc removal rates, total procedure time, and adverse events in both techniques..

Results: The study included 303 patients who underwent food bolus extraction. The push technique was used in 87 patients (28.7%) and a retrieval procedure in 216 patients (71.3%). Cap-assisted extraction was performed in 106 patients and retrieval using conventional methods in 110 patients. The cap-assisted technique was associated with a higher rate of en bloc removal (80.2% vs. 15%, p<0.01), shorter procedure time (6.9±3.5 min vs. 15.7±4.1 min, p<0.001), and fewer adverse events (0/106 vs. 9/110, p<0.001).

Conclusion: Cap-assisted extraction showed no adverse events, higher efficacy, and a shorter procedure time compared with conventional retrieval procedures.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6785424PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2019.042DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

food bolus
16
push technique
12
cap-assisted technique
8
conventional methods
8
bolus extraction
8
retrieval methods
8
study compared
8
bloc removal
8
technique
6
extraction
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!