Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31579741›Full record

ArticleInnovative surgical sciences2017

Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience.

Pia Kokemohr, Lars Haeder, Fabian Joachim Frömling, Peter Landwehr, Joachim Jähne

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Innovative surgical sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: A single-center experience.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2023
    Article
  4. Rectal Foreign Body: A Case Report.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Case series of retained rectal foreign body. A Malaysian experience.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pia KokemohrClinic for General and Digestive Surgery, Center for Endocrine, Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, DIAKOVERE Henriettenstift, Marienstraße 72-90, D-30171 Hannover, Germany.
Lars HaederClinic for General and Digestive Surgery, Center for Endocrine, Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, DIAKOVERE Henriettenstift, Marienstraße 72-90, D-30171 Hannover, Germany.
Fabian Joachim FrömlingKlinik für Hämatologie, Hämostaseologie, Onkologie und Stammzelltransplantation, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Peter LandwehrKlinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Hannover, Germany.
Joachim JähneClinic for General and Digestive Surgery, Center for Endocrine, Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, DIAKOVERE Henriettenstift, Marienstraße 72-90, D-30171 Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with a rectal foreign body (RFB) are still a rare entity in general surgery departments but with an increasing incidence over the last years. This case is sometimes difficult to treat, and due to a lack of standardized treatment options, the aim of the study was to present our clinical experiences with the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to RFBs and a review of the currently available literature. MATERIALS AND

methodsData were collected retrospectively from the patient's records of 20 patients who were treated due to an RFB between 2006 and 2016. Patient's demographics, circumstances of insertion, inserted objects, clinical presentation, laboratory and imaging results, as well as surgical treatment and duration of hospital stay were analyzed. Additionally, a review of the literature was performed with the search items "rectal foreign body" and "surgical therapy". Because many publications were just case reports, we did not perform a meta-analysis or a systematic review.

resultsTwenty-two cases in 20 patients (80% male) presented to the emergency room. The mean age was 38.5±13.7 years. In 68.2% of the cases, the cause of RFB was due to sexual preferences. The following objects were inserted: six dildos, three vibrators, two bottles, one glass, one deodorant, one apple, one fever thermometer, multiple glass fragments and razor blades in one patient and six unknown objects. For 18 RFBs, manual peranal removal without anesthesia was possible in the emergency room, but two patients required intravenous analgesia. Two patients were transferred to the operating room and the foreign body was removed via the anus under general anesthesia. Open surgery with a laparotomy was necessary for two complicated cases. One patient was in need of surgery due to a vacuum generated by the RFB, whereas the second patient suffered from a sigmoid perforation. In all cases, there was no morbidity or mortality.

conclusionIn most cases, the removal of an RFB can be performed peranally in the emergency room without further complications, therefore representing the therapy of choice for RFB. Only in cases with perforation, acute abdomen, or failed peranal approaches, surgery is indicated to remove the foreign body.

Indexed as

manual extractionrectal foreign bodysexual preferencessurgical therapy

Identifiers

PMID31579741
PMCPMC6754005
OpenAlexW2621352350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.