ArticleCureus2025
Management of a Foreign Body in the Throat: Should Awareness of Channelled Flexible Nasendoscopes Be Encouraged Among Junior ENT Doctors?
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ingested foreign bodies in the upper aero-digestive tract are a common ENT emergency. Initial assessment and management by a junior ENT doctor involves removal of the foreign body under direct visualisation, with escalation to removal under general anaesthesia (GA) if unsuccessful. However, removal under general GA carries procedural risks, anaesthetic risks, and a higher cost profile. An adult female presented to our unit with a fish bone lodged in the right pyriform fossa. Initial removal with instruments and direct visualisation with a flexible nasendoscope (without a working channel) was attempted but was unsuccessful. She was scheduled for removal under GA. At morning handover, an alternative approach was suggested (a method not routinely familiar to the on-call junior doctor team) and trialled using a single-use flexible nasendoscope with a working channel. Following topical anaesthesia, the scope was passed orally, and biopsy forceps were introduced via the accessory channel, which allowed for the successful removal of the fish bone. The patient was discharged the same day without complications, avoiding admission and GA. She was followed up with a telephone call and reported that she had returned to her normal routine with no significant complications. While not a novel treatment plan, flexible nasendoscopes with working channels represent a valuable adjunct in escalation protocols for foreign body retrieval. Their use can reduce the need for GA, prevent unnecessary admissions, and optimise resource use in selected cases. Education and training for these instruments can be considered or encouraged among junior ENT doctors to avoid unnecessary admissions for these presentations. However, broad conclusions should not be extrapolated from a single case study, and further audits and surveys of junior doctors' knowledge and expertise are required.
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.