Cargando…

Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China

BACKGROUNDS: Previous reports of foreign-body ingestion focused primarily on accidental ingestion and very few studies focused on intentional ingestion of foreign body (FB) in China. Our study aimed to compare the prevalence of different age, gender, types, locations and management of FB ingested be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zong, Ye, Zhao, Haiying, Sun, Can, Ji, Ming, Wu, Yongdong, Zhang, Shutian, Wang, Yongjun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7137476/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32252651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01224-z
_version_ 1783518434877767680
author Zong, Ye
Zhao, Haiying
Sun, Can
Ji, Ming
Wu, Yongdong
Zhang, Shutian
Wang, Yongjun
author_facet Zong, Ye
Zhao, Haiying
Sun, Can
Ji, Ming
Wu, Yongdong
Zhang, Shutian
Wang, Yongjun
author_sort Zong, Ye
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUNDS: Previous reports of foreign-body ingestion focused primarily on accidental ingestion and very few studies focused on intentional ingestion of foreign body (FB) in China. Our study aimed to compare the prevalence of different age, gender, types, locations and management of FB ingested between intentional ingestion and accidental ingestion of FB in Northern China. METHODS: A retrospective case series studied all patients with suspected FB ingestion in Digestive Endoscopy Center of Beijing Friendship Hospital, between January 2011 and January 2019. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A included the patients who intentionally ingested FBs, and Group B included the patients who accidentally ingested FBs. Patients’ database (demographics, past medical history, characteristics of FB, endoscopic findings and treatments) were reviewed. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software. RESULTS: Group A consisted of 77 prisoners, 2 suspects and 11 psychologically disabled persons. Group B consisted of 1020 patients with no prisoners, suspects or psychologically disabled persons. In Group A, there were no food-related foreign bodies, and the majority of FBs were metallic objects (54.44%). However in Group B, food-related FBs were the most common (91.37%). In Group A, 58 cases (64.44%) were located in the stomach, while in Group B, 893 cases (87.55%) were located in the esophagus (P < 0.05). 1096 patients successfully underwent endoscopic removal and 14 failed, including 9 cases in Group A and 5 cases in Group B. The duration of FBs impaction was longer in Group A than that in Group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the patients who intentionally ingested FB were mainly prisoners, FBs were mostly sharp metallic objects, the duration of FBs impaction was longer, and the rate of successful endoscopic treatment was lower than that of the general population. Attention should be focused on these patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7137476
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71374762020-04-11 Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China Zong, Ye Zhao, Haiying Sun, Can Ji, Ming Wu, Yongdong Zhang, Shutian Wang, Yongjun BMC Gastroenterol Research Article BACKGROUNDS: Previous reports of foreign-body ingestion focused primarily on accidental ingestion and very few studies focused on intentional ingestion of foreign body (FB) in China. Our study aimed to compare the prevalence of different age, gender, types, locations and management of FB ingested between intentional ingestion and accidental ingestion of FB in Northern China. METHODS: A retrospective case series studied all patients with suspected FB ingestion in Digestive Endoscopy Center of Beijing Friendship Hospital, between January 2011 and January 2019. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A included the patients who intentionally ingested FBs, and Group B included the patients who accidentally ingested FBs. Patients’ database (demographics, past medical history, characteristics of FB, endoscopic findings and treatments) were reviewed. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software. RESULTS: Group A consisted of 77 prisoners, 2 suspects and 11 psychologically disabled persons. Group B consisted of 1020 patients with no prisoners, suspects or psychologically disabled persons. In Group A, there were no food-related foreign bodies, and the majority of FBs were metallic objects (54.44%). However in Group B, food-related FBs were the most common (91.37%). In Group A, 58 cases (64.44%) were located in the stomach, while in Group B, 893 cases (87.55%) were located in the esophagus (P < 0.05). 1096 patients successfully underwent endoscopic removal and 14 failed, including 9 cases in Group A and 5 cases in Group B. The duration of FBs impaction was longer in Group A than that in Group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the patients who intentionally ingested FB were mainly prisoners, FBs were mostly sharp metallic objects, the duration of FBs impaction was longer, and the rate of successful endoscopic treatment was lower than that of the general population. Attention should be focused on these patients. BioMed Central 2020-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7137476/ /pubmed/32252651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01224-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zong, Ye
Zhao, Haiying
Sun, Can
Ji, Ming
Wu, Yongdong
Zhang, Shutian
Wang, Yongjun
Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China
title Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China
title_full Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China
title_fullStr Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China
title_full_unstemmed Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China
title_short Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China
title_sort differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in china
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7137476/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32252651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01224-z
work_keys_str_mv AT zongye differencesbetweenintentionalandaccidentalingestionofforeignbodyinchina
AT zhaohaiying differencesbetweenintentionalandaccidentalingestionofforeignbodyinchina
AT suncan differencesbetweenintentionalandaccidentalingestionofforeignbodyinchina
AT jiming differencesbetweenintentionalandaccidentalingestionofforeignbodyinchina
AT wuyongdong differencesbetweenintentionalandaccidentalingestionofforeignbodyinchina
AT zhangshutian differencesbetweenintentionalandaccidentalingestionofforeignbodyinchina
AT wangyongjun differencesbetweenintentionalandaccidentalingestionofforeignbodyinchina