ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Case Report: Suspected intestinal perforation caused by accidental ingestion of magnet.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Intestinal perforation secondary to ingested chicken bone: case report and literature review.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Children frequently swallow foreign objects, and ingesting magnets on occasion can cause major problems because they are composed of unique materials that draw to one another in the intestinal wall. As a result, there is a significant chance of intestinal wall necrosis, intestinal perforation, and fistula formation. On the basis of the history of magnet ingestion, clinical signs like nausea and vomiting, and x-ray imaging, it is easy to diagnose magnet-induced complications. However, there was no foreign body shadow in the x-ray, and some intermittent swallowing of magnets in different intestinal tubes attracted one another, causing intestinal perforation and subsequent discharge along with the feces. Case presentation: We describe the case of an 8-year-old girl who had been consuming two magnets for six days when she arrived at our hospital's emergency room with sporadic stomach ache and vomiting for two days. The youngster had a history of vomiting yellow-green bile, and a physical examination revealed a noticeable intestinal pattern with noticeable periumbilical discomfort. An abdominopelvic CT scan indicated intestinal obstruction, while an abdominal x-ray indicated minimal distension of the intestinal tube and a fluid level. No obvious foreign body shadow was seen in the abdominal cavity. Laparoscopic exploration revealed two perforations, one in the colon and one in the small bowel; no magnets were found intraoperatively. Intraoperative abdominal radiographs suggested loss of signs of limited intestinal distension and no foreign body was seen. Considering the absence of foreign bodies observed during the operation and the patency of the intestine postoperatively, it is reasonably inferred that the magnet was excreted via feces after causing intestinal perforation. The patient's condition was stable after the operation and she was discharged from the hospital after 9 days. Conclusion: This case emphasizes the necessity of maintaining clinical vigilance in pediatric patients with suspected magnet ingestion, even when imaging fails to identify foreign bodies. Notably, the absence of intraoperatively retrieved magnets does not preclude magnet-induced injuries, and early surgical exploration may contribute to improved clinical outcomes.
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.