ArticleCureus2024
Rigid Esophagoscopy for Foreign Body Extraction: Results and Complications in the Endoscopic Era.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a preoperative predictive scoring system for esophageal perforation induced by fishbones.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Oesophageal Perforation Surgical Treatment: What Affects the Outcome? A Multicenter Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Application of a double-balloon method to remove button battery at the entrance of esophagus in a 17-month-old child: a case report.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Rigid esophagoscopy (RE) has long been a part of otolaryngology practice. In the past decades, the procedure was less commonly performed due to the advances and availability of flexible endoscopic techniques. This study aims to describe the outcomes of RE performed to treat foreign body ingestion and to evaluate risk factors associated with postoperative complications. Methods Patients who underwent RE to treat foreign body ingestion in an otolaryngology emergency department of a Portuguese tertiary university hospital, between 2010 and 2020, were included. A total of 162 cases were analyzed, and data was collected retrospectively. Results The most common foreign bodies were meat bone (31.5%, n = 47), food impaction (28.8%, n = 43), and fish bone (19.5%, n = 29). The proximal esophagus was by far the most frequent location (80%, n = 118). Esophageal perforation occurred in 8% (13 patients), and there was a 2.5% (n = 4) mortality rate. The odds ratio of an esophageal perforation if the foreign body was completely or partially located outside the proximal esophagus was 4.67 times that of a foreign body exclusively in the proximal esophagus (OR = 4.67 [95% CI: 1.39-15.72]; p = 0.016; Fisher's exact test). Conclusion RE remains an effective and important technique in the management of ingested foreign bodies, particularly if endoscopic removal is unsuccessful. Foreign body location outside the proximal esophagus was associated with esophageal perforation.
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.