ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2026
Surgical management of intentional ingestion of two nail clippers in an incarcerated adult: a case report.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Foreign body (FB) ingestion is a frequent concern in emergency settings. Intentional ingestion of FBs in adults is more common among incarcerated individuals. Complications such as impaction, perforation, hemorrhage, and obstruction may arise, necessitating prompt evaluation. Case presentation: We report a case of a 26-year-old incarcerated male who presented to the emergency department after ingesting two nail clippers simultaneously. He complained of epigastric pain. Plain abdominal radiography revealed two objects in the stomach. Given the sharp nature of the FBs, his symptoms, and the risk of complications, a contrast-enhanced CT scan was performed, showing no additional findings. Endoscopic retrieval was unsuccessful, and he subsequently underwent open gastrostomy, which successfully removed the objects. Postoperative recovery was uneventful. Discussion: Most gastrointestinal FBs pass spontaneously without intervention. However, outcomes differ significantly in incarcerated populations. Clinical presentation ranges from asymptomatic cases to acute abdomen. Management is challenging due to the variable size, shape, and sharpness of ingested objects. Abdominal radiography remains the first-line diagnostic tool. Treatment may include observation, endoscopic removal, or surgical intervention, depending on the clinical context. Although many FBs pass spontaneously or are retrieved endoscopically, some require surgery. Gastrostomy is widely accepted for the surgical removal of ingested FBs. Conclusions: Incarcerated individuals represent a unique clinical population in which intentional FB ingestion reflects complex behavioral patterns, posing therapeutic challenges and a high risk of recurrence. Delayed diagnosis may lead to serious complications. Psychiatric evaluation and preventive measures are essential to reduce recurrence in incarcerated patients.
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.