• Gyu Man Oh, Kyoungwon Jung, Jae Hyun Kim, Sung Eun Kim, Won Moon, Moo In Park, and Seun Ja Park.
• Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Jul 29; 101 (30): e29399e29399.

AbstractAmong the plethora of foreign body impactions, fish bones are common examples that patients may struggle to properly disclose in clinical situations. This study investigated whether patients could pinpoint where the ingested fish bone was lodged. In addition, we investigated the differences between fish bone and other foreign bodies, the usefulness of computed tomography (CT), and the related risk factors for hospitalization. The cases of patients who underwent an endoscopic removal of fish bone between April 2008 and April 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical outcomes, X-ray scan, CT, and complications of each patient were investigated. A total of 96 patients were included in this study. The mean size of the impacted fish bone was 23.78 mm, and most were found in the upper esophagus (n = 38). There was a weak correlation between pain location and the actual lesion location (r = 0.419, P < .001). Compared to those of other foreign bodies, the location of impacted fish bones was different (P < .001), the X-ray detection rate of fish bones was lower (P < .001), and the complication incidence was higher (P = .030). CT (95.89%) showed higher sensitivity than X-ray scanning (11.24%) (P < .001). Foreign body size (P = .004) and door-to-endoscopy time (P = .029) were related to admission. Patients only managed to point out the approximate location of the ingested fish bone. CT detected fish bones well, but scans should include at least the entire esophagus instead of solely the area where pain is felt. Fish bone impaction has different clinical characteristics from other foreign bodies. Endoscopic removal without delay can reduce the admission rates.Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

20 keywords...

hide…