Foreign body (FB) in the esophagus is a common emergency presentation in all age groups, especially in children. The immediate risk can range from a minimal one to a life-threatening scenario. Food impactions generally occur when there is altered anatomy (rings, webs or strictures) or motility disorders of the esophagus. The initial management approach includes a thorough history and physical examination followed by radiological investigations. Flexible endoscopy not only confirms the diagnosis but also is the therapeutic modality of choice for removing FBs and relieving the obstruction. This review aims to provide a comprehensive approach towards endoscopic management of esophageal FBs based on current literature and personal experience. The management problems associated with different types of FBs have also been highlighted.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is done using EUS-FNA needle with an internal stylet by most of the endosonographers. There is no data to suggest that it improves the quality of cytology specimen, and it is tedious and time-consuming. Aim: To compare EUS-FNA specimens obtained with stylet and without stylet for adequacy of the specimen, amount of blood on the slide, number of passes and diagnostic yield. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid lesions by one experienced endosonographer at an Indian tertiary center from October 2013 to July 2014 were included. Totally, 115 consecutive patients with 128 lesions were randomized to undergo EUS-FNA with or without stylet. Cytology slides were evaluated by a single pathologist blinded to FNA technique. Results: EUS-FNA was done with stylet in 66 lesions (Group 1) and without stylet in 62 lesions (Group 2). Site of lesion was lymph node in 67 (52.3%), pancreas in 43 (33.6%), liver in 8 (6.2%), gastrointestinal subepithelial lesion in 4 (3.1%) and others in 6 (4.9%). The average size of the lesion was 23.7 ± 14.8. When outcomes of two groups were compared, there was no statistically significant difference in adequacy of smears (P = 1.00), amount of blood on slides (P = 0.92), number of passes (P = 0.49) and diagnostic yield (P = 0.86). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in adequacy of the specimen, amount of blood on the slide, number of passes and diagnostic yield between with and without a stylet groups. The use of a stylet does not confer any advantage during EUS-FNA.