ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Case report and literature review: Orally ingested toothpick perforating the lower rectum.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Follow-up Computed Tomography Improves Detection of a Duodenal Toothpick.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Surgical management of intentional ingestion of two nail clippers in an incarcerated adult: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Foreign Body Ingestion: Radiologic Evaluation, Findings, and Management.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Fish bone foreign body causing rectal, uterine, and bladder perforation: a rare case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Most foreign bodies (FBs) can spontaneously pass through the gastrointestinal tract. Sharp FBs are believed to be able to puncture any part of the gastrointestinal tract, causing perforation and potentially secondary damage to adjacent organs. Case description: A 44-year-old man complained of having persistent dull pain in the perianal region. He was diagnosed with a toothpick impacted into the wall of the lower rectum after accepting a digital rectal examination of the lower rectum and a pelvic computed tomography (CT). The surgeon extracted the FB using vascular forceps guided by the operator's index finger. The patient was discharged after intravenous ceftriaxone was given for 6 days. A follow-up pelvic CT performed 2 weeks after surgery revealed that the perirectal fat and muscles had already normalized. Conclusion: A systematic review of relevant literature from the past decade was performed to summarize the imaging features of an orally ingested toothpick perforating the gastrointestinal tract. The location of abdominal pain is an important clue for the diagnosis of toothpick perforation, and a CT examination is recommended as the first option for the detection of an ingested toothpick. Determining the location of the toothpick perforation and assessing the severity of local inflammation are important bases for the selection of treatment.
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.