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.

Objective: Esophageal Foreign Body (FB) impaction represents a major challenge for healthcare providers. Aim of this systematic review was to analyse the current literature evidence on prevalence, presentation, treatment, and outcomes of impacted esophageal FB. Materials and methods: Literature search was conducted between 2000 and 30th June 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results: Sixty-one studies matched the inclusion criteria. The total number of included patients was 13,092. The cervical esophagus was the most frequent impaction site (67%) and sharp-pointed objects were the most common FB (38.1%). Retrosternal pain (78%), dysphagia (48%), and odynophagia (43.4%) were the most common symptoms. A flexible or rigid endoscopic approach was adopted in 65.1% and 16.8% of patients, respectively. Overall, 17.8% of patients had a complication related to the impacted esophageal FB or to the endoscopic manoeuvers. A surgical approach was required in 3.4% of patients. The overall mortality was 0.85%. Conclusions: Surgery is the upfront treatment in patients with esophageal perforation or endoscopically irretrievable esophageal FB. A minimally invasive approach can be adopted in selected patients. Effective prevention of FB impaction should focus on accurate diagnostic work-up to search for an underlying motility disorder after a first episode of esophageal impaction, even if transient and self-resolving.

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. 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 I2 index and Cochrane Q test. 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. 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.

Background: Esophageal lipomatous tumors, also reported as fibrovascular polyp, fibrolipoma, angiolipoma, and liposarcoma, account for less than 1% of all benign mesenchymal submucosal tumors of the esophagus. Clinical presentation and therapy may differ based on location, size, and morphology. A comprehensive and updated systematic review of the literature is lacking.Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Medline databases were consulted using MESH keywords. Non‐English written articles and abstracts were excluded. Sex, age, symptoms at presentation, diagnosis, tumor location and size, surgical approach and technique of excision, pathology, and morphology were extracted and recorded in an electronic database.Results: Sixty‐seven studies for a total of 239 patients with esophageal lipoma or liposarcoma were included in the qualitative analysis. Among 176 patients with benign lipoma, the median age was 55. The main symptoms were dysphagia (64.2%), transoral polyp regurgitation (32.4%), and globus sensation (22.7%). The majority of lipomas (85.7%) were intraluminal polyps, with a stalk originating from the upper esophagus. Overall, 165 patients underwent excision of the mass through open surgery (65.5%), endoscopy (27.9%), or laparoscopy/thoracoscopy (3.6%). Only 5 (3%) of patients required esophagectomy. Of the 11 untreated patients with an intraluminal polyp, 7 died from asphyxia. Overall, liposarcoma was diagnosed in 63 patients, and 12 (19%) underwent esophagectomy.Conclusion: Esophageal lipomatous tumors are rare but potentially lethal when are intraluminal and originate from the cervical esophagus. Modern radiological imaging has improved diagnostic accuracy. Minimally invasive transoral and laparoscopic/thoracoscopic techniques represent the therapeutic approach of choice.

Background: Safety and effectiveness of absorbable meshes for laparoscopic hiatus hernia repair are still debated. This may be due to patient selection, technique of repair, type and shape of mesh, definition of recurrent hernia, and length of follow-up. The aim of this study was to assess safety, short-term efficacy, and quality of life after laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia reinforced with a biosynthetic absorbable mesh. Materials and Methods: A single-center observational cohort study was conducted in patients with large type III-IV hiatal hernia who underwent laparoscopic crural repair reinforced with Phasix ST ^® , a monofilament resorbable mesh (poly-4-hydroxybuterate) with a hydrogel barrier on one side. Patient data were extracted from hospital charts and a prospectively updated research database. Both generic Short Form-36 (SF-36) and disease-specific (Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality of Life [GERD-HRQL]) questionnaires were used to assess preoperative and postoperative quality of life. Results: From January 2017 to July 2019, 73 consecutive patients were implanted with Phasix ST mesh. The median follow-up was 17 (interquartile range 9–24) months. Recurrent hernia was found in 2 of 62 (3.2%) patients followed for more than 6 months after surgery, but none required reoperation. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 8.2%. No mesh-related complications occurred. Compared to baseline, there was a statistically significant improvement of all items of the SF-36 questionnaire ( P < .001) and of the median GERD-HRQL score ( P < .001). Conclusion: The use of Phasix ST mesh to reinforce crural repair for large hiatus hernias is safe, is effective in the short-term follow-up, and is associated to improved quality of life.