4.5 Article

Proposal for methods of diagnosis of fish bone foreign body in the Esophagus

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 125, Issue 11, Pages 2472-2475

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25340

Keywords

Esophagus; fish bone; computed tomography; foreign body

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning [2013R1A1A1012542]
  2. Leading Foreign Research Institutes Recruitment Program through NRF - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2012K1A4A3053142]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo investigate the methods of diagnosis of fish bone foreign body in the esophagus and suggest a diagnostic protocol. Study DesignProspective cohort study. MethodsA prospective study was performed on 286 patients with a history of fish bone foreign body impaction. Among them, 88 patients had negative findings in the oral cavity and laryngopharynx. Subsequent radiologic assessment of these patients included plain radiography and computed tomography (CT). Sixty-six patients showed positive findings in the esophagus, and an attempt was made to remove the obstruction using transnasal esophagoscopy. ResultsIn 66 patients, a fish bone foreign body was detected in the esophagus by CT. In contrast, plain radiography detected a foreign body in only 30 patients. The overall detection rate of plain radiography compared with CT for fish bones was 45.5%. Plain radiography detected 35.9% of the simple type fish bones and 54.5% of the gill bone detected by CT. However, jaw bones had a detection rate of 100% with both methods. The fish bone foreign bodies were most commonly located in the upper esophagus (n=65, 98.5%), followed by the lower esophagus (n=1, 1.5%). ConclusionCT is a useful method for identification of esophageal fish bone foreign bodies. Therefore, CT should be considered as the first-choice technique for the diagnosis of esophageal fish bone foreign body.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available