ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2022
Management of unusual rectal foreign body - Case report and literature review.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRetained rectal objects represent a rare complaint in the emergency room, affecting mainly males between 20 and 40 years, with most objects of a sexual nature, but the examiner must be aware of objects of an unusual nature. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 54-year-old male patient arrives at the surgical emergency department, with a report of an accident with the insertion of an object via the rectum, a gym dumbbell. Initially opted for transrectal object removal, but with difficulties due to its position. DISCUSSION: Retained rectal objects are a rare complaint in the emergency department, but with an increasingly important occurrence in recent years. Physical examination should include an assessment of the abdomen and digital rectal examination. Imaging tests are mandatory for diagnosis, with abdominal and pelvis radiography being the most requested. Although there is no consensus on the most appropriate removal technique, less invasive initial approaches are recommended, with transanal removal with a 60-75% success rate under local anesthesia. The follow-up after the procedure depends on several factors, and in general, the patient should be kept under observation and attention should be paid to significant changes in the evolution and alterations in the imaging tests.
conclusionThe clinical history in these cases can be confusing, due to the patient's fear of reporting the complaints. Radiography is the best initial test, and CT is reserved for cases of suspected complications. Whenever possible, perform the extraction rectally.
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.