3.8 Article

Removing endobronchial needle-like foreign bodies in two school-age children

Journal

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA CASE REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 64-67

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/23772484.2023.2215411

Keywords

Endobronchial foreign body; needle-like; school-age; case report

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two school-age children were diagnosed with endobronchial foreign bodies (EFBs) caused by accidentally inhaling metal-containing foreign bodies. In case 1, a needle-like foreign body was found at the entrance of the right upper lobe bronchus, while in case 2, it was located in the posterior basal segment of the right lower lobe. The EFB in case 1 was successfully removed using rigid bronchoscopy. In case 2, the EFB was initially inaccessible via fiberoptic bronchoscopy, but was eventually removed by rigid bronchoscopy after accidental displacement during thoracotomy. The surgical approach should be tailored to the specific characteristics of the foreign body to minimize patient injury.
Background: Endobronchial foreign bodies (EFBs) are rare in children over the age of three. Case presentation: Two school-age children had EFBs due to accidental inhalation of metal-containing foreign bodies in the mouth. In case 1, CT showed a needle-like foreign body at the entrance of the right upper lobe bronchus, and in case 2, it was found in the posterior basal segment of the right lower lobe. The EFB in case 1 was successfully removed by rigid bronchoscopy. In case 2, the EFB was not accessible via fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and the foreign body was accidentally pushed into the right main bronchus during the thoracotomy for foreign body removal; however, it was later removed by rigid bronchoscopy. Conclusion: In cases of special types of bronchial foreign bodies, the surgical approach should be selected based on the features of the foreign body to minimize patient injury as much as possible.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available