ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Case Report: Transanal extraction combined with wound management for a broken glass foreign body and associated rectal injuries.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rectal foreign bodies (RFBs) have become a relatively common yet often underestimated clinical entity. Fragile and sharp objects like glass pose a perplexing challenge, as unsafe removal may lead to complications or even life-threatening injuries. This report details the management of a complex case involving a broken glass rectal foreign body with associated rectal injuries. Case presentation: A 55-year-old male was brought to the emergency department complaining of rectal fullness and bleeding after inserting a glass cup. Plain abdominal X-ray film showed an irregular dense shadow approximately 7 cm in length within the pelvis, with no evidence suggesting bowel perforation. A rectal digital examination (DRE) revealed the presence of an intrarectal foreign body with suspected rectal mucosal injury. The foreign body was successfully removed transanally under spinal anesthesia. Assessment revealed rectal lacerations without active bleeding. To mitigate the risk of entrapping minute glass fragments, the wounds were debrided and left open for secondary intention healing. Furthermore, we selectively ligated the congested and redundant mucosal folds adjacent to the wounds to promote healing. The postoperative course was uneventful. Flexible proctosigmoidoscopy at two-month follow-up demonstrated complete mucosal healing without complications. Conclusions: The management of broken glass RFBs with associated rectal injuries requires a systematic approach involving precise diagnosis, cautious intervention, and attentive postoperative care. This case describes a distinct management strategy for such injuries and will provide a reference for clinicians facing similar clinical scenarios.
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.