↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective analysis of management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions in emergency endoscopic setting in adults

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Retrospective analysis of management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions in emergency endoscopic setting in adults
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12873-016-0104-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Girolamo Geraci, Carmelo Sciume’, Giovanni Di Carlo, Antonino Picciurro, Giuseppe Modica

Abstract

Ingestion of foreign bodies and food impaction represent the second most common endoscopic emergency after bleeding. The aim of this paper is to report the management and the outcomes in 67 patients admitted for suspected ingestion of foreign body between December 2012 and December 2014. This retrospective study was conducted at Palermo University Hospitals, Italy, over a 2-year period. We reviewed patients' database (age, sex, type of foreign body and its anatomical location, treatments, and outcomes as complications, success rates, and mortalities). Foreign bodies were found in all of our 67 patients. Almost all were found in the stomach and lower esophagus (77 %). The types of foreign body were very different, but they were chiefly meat boluses, fishbones or cartilages, button battery and dental prostheses. In all patients it was possible to endoscopically remove the foreign body. Complications related to the endoscopic procedure were unfrequent (about 7 %) and have been treated conservatively. 5.9 % of patients had previous esophageal or laryngeal surgery, and 8.9 % had an underlying esophageal disease, such as a narrowing, dismotility or achalasia. Our experience with foreign bodies and food impaction emphasizes the importance of endoscopic approach and removal, simple and secure when performed by experienced hands and under conscious sedation in most cases. High success rates, lower incidence of minor complications, reduction of the need of surgery and reduced hospitalization time are the strengths of the endoscopic approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 17 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Psychology 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Unknown 19 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2016.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#686
of 781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,554
of 313,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.