ArticleCureus2021
Endoscopic Retrieval of Ingested Foreign Bodies: A Single Surgeon Experience.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Foreign body ingestion: how common is it really? A review and our experience managing a young woman: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Review
- From Molars to Bronchus; The Tale of an Aspirated Dental Instrument.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2025Article
- Management strategy of a carotid-esophageal fistula with a right common carotid artery pseudoaneurysm due to chicken bone ingestion: A case report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- A case of accidental ingestion and medical retrieval of dental implant prosthetic hex driver.National journal of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Foreign body (FB) ingestion either accidental or intentional is a common clinical scenario encountered by general surgeons. This article reports a single surgeon's experience of endoscopic retrieval of foreign bodies from the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract. Methods A retrospective analysis of data of all the patients who underwent endoscopic management for foreign body removal by a single surgeon in a tertiary care hospital in southern India between 2015 and 2020 was conducted. Patient variables in terms of age, sex, type of foreign body, its location in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, the time between ingestion and presentation, the time between presentation and endoscopy, treatment outcomes were reviewed. Results A total of 97 patients were studied. The age range of the patients studied was one month to 71 years. Males were predominant (n=64, 65.97%). The most common retrieved foreign body were coins (n=31, 31.9%). The most common site of foreign body lodgment was the esophagus (n=75, 77.31%), with the upper third esophagus (n=38; 39.37%) being the predominant site. The success rate of endoscopic retrieval in our study was 97%. No procedure-related complications were encountered in any patient. Endoscopic management failed in two patients who ultimately required surgical intervention. Conclusion Endoscopic retrieval of foreign bodies in the UGI tract is a safe and effective modality. Early endoscopy in such patients avoids surgical intervention and reduces morbidity.
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.