ArticleCureus2025
Probing the Matter: A Case of Rectal Foreign Body Insertion in a Patient With Intellectual Disability.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Case Report: Transanal extraction combined with wound management for a broken glass foreign body and associated rectal injuries.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rectal foreign body insertion presents a challenging clinical scenario, with increasing incidence, particularly among males. In both acute management and long-term care, particularly when associated with psychiatric illness or intellectual disability, careful consideration is required. We report a 23-year-old male with mild intellectual disability who presented with a retained handheld bidet shower inserted for sexual gratification. He had a similar episode within the past six months. Despite the object being partially visible externally - that may cause the inexperienced, unassuming physician to falsely believe the ease of removal - it is imperative to follow proper diagnostic and management protocols for safe retrieval. Initial evaluation included radiographic assessment by X-ray imaging to determine the object's position and rule out complications. Successful transanal extraction was achieved without complications under general anesthesia. Postoperative CT with rectal contrast confirmed the absence of perforation or lingering damage related to the foreign body or procedure. The patient was subsequently referred for psychiatric evaluation and started on olanzapine but was later lost to follow-up. This case highlights the importance of systematic management protocols in rectal foreign body extraction, regardless of the apparent simplicity of retrieval. It also emphasizes the need for comprehensive psychiatric evaluation and follow-up care, particularly in patients with intellectual disability, while addressing the persistent social stigma surrounding both rectal foreign body insertion and mental health issues.
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.