Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Recurrent food impactions
  1. Florian Hentschel1,
  2. Andreas Georg Schreyer2,
  3. Stefan Lüth1
  1. 1Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany
  2. 2Department of Radiology, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Florian Hentschel, Zentrum für Innere Medizin II, Hochschulklinikum Brandenburg, Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg, Germany; f.hentschel{at}klinikum-brandenburg.de

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Clinical presentation

Within 4 years, a 58 (to 62)-year-old man attended the emergency department five times because of acute oesophageal food impaction. Other diagnoses included alcohol and tobacco abuse, arterial hypertension, and coronary sclerosis with cardiac infarction and coronary bypass.

On each presentation, the patient complained about mild retrosternal pain and an inability to swallow anything including his own saliva. Vital signs were normal, abdominal examination was unremarkable. Routine laboratory parameters were normal. At first presentation, electrocardiography and serum troponin were normal; chest X-ray suggested moderate lung oedema and no signs of aspiration.

Each time, wedged food was removed endoscopically from various locations in the upper, middle and lower oesophagi within hours after admission. One day after the first bolus …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors FH cared for the patient, performed gastroscopies and wrote the manuscript. AGS assessed radiological findings, researched literature and cowrote the manuscript. SL cared for the patient, researched literature and edited the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval All procedures reported in this case were in accordance with the standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.