ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2021
Comparison of Endoscopy Alone with Surgery Converted from Endoscopy for the Removal of Esophageal Foreign Bodies in Adults: A Retrospective Study from a Single Center.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes of sharp esophageal foreign bodies in elderly patients: a retrospective study from Wuhan, China.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram-based model to predict combined esophageal injury post-esophagoscopy for esophageal foreign bodies.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Management of Gastrointestinal Foreign Bodies with Brief Review of the Guidelines.Pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition · 2023Review
- Retrievable Silicone-Covered Esophageal Stent-Assisted Endoscopic Extraction of a High-Risk Clasp-Retained Denture Impacted at the Aortic Arch Level of the Esophagus: A Case Report.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The impaction of an esophageal foreign body is an urgent situation requiring emergency intervention. This retrospective study from a single center in China aimed to compare endoscopy alone with surgery converted from endoscopy for the removal of esophageal foreign bodies in adults. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 252 patients with esophageal foreign bodies were divided into 3 groups based on the treatment received: endoscopy, surgery converted from endoscopy, or surgery only. Patients' clinical and demographic data were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS The diameter of the foreign bodies in patients treated by surgery converted from endoscopy was larger than that of those treated by simple endoscopy (5.2 cm vs 2.7 cm, P=0.0003). The cervical or upper thoracic esophagus was the most common site of foreign body impaction treated by surgery converted from endoscopy, while the foreign bodies removed by simple endoscopy were frequently lodged at the middle thoracic esophagus (P=0.021). Bone-related foreign bodies and dentures were most likely impacted in patients treated with surgery converted from endoscopy. The factors influencing the choice of treatment included foreign body maximal diameter and location. CONCLUSIONS Larger foreign bodies that were found in the cervical or upper thoracic esophagus were associated with failed endoscopic removal and required surgical removal. Irregularly shaped or sharp foreign bodies, including dentures and fishbones, required surgical removal. These findings may guide future decisions of first-line approaches for the removal of esophageal foreign bodies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.