MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2156859834 · doi:10.15537/1658-3175.3175

Esophageal foreign bodies in Yemen

2005· article· en· W2156859834 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed Y. Al-Mahbashi, Y A Raja'a

Notice bibliographique

RevueSaudi Medical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEsophageal and GI Pathology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineEsophagusPerforationForeign bodyImpactionIncidence (geometry)ComplicationDysphagiaSurgeryFish boneEsophageal diseaseGeneral surgeryPresentation (obstetrics)Fish <Actinopterygii>

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

oreign body (FB) impaction in the esophagus is a common and serious health problem. Foreign bodies can lead to many complications such as esophageal perforation, mucosal erosions1 and fistulizations.2 Complication from esophageal FB can include death.3 The maximum incidence of esophageal FB occurs among children under 5 years old.4 The most common kind of the esophageal FBs in Oman are mutton bones (29.5%), fish bones (20.5%), and coins (20.5%).5 In Saudi Arabia, these are fish bones (27%), meat bones (23%), and coins (12%).6 In Jordan, coins (55.5%), bones (13.9%), and metallic objects (6.7%).7 The general objective of this study is to describe the distribution of the esophageal FB among patients presenting at AlThawra Teaching Hospital. Specifically, to classify the kinds of common FB in the esophagus, identify duration, clinical presentation and diagnosis, outcome of the interventions and to correlate the incidence of FBs with age and gender. A total of 224 patients with FB in the esophagus attended the General Emergency Room and ENT clinic at Al-Thawra Teaching Hospital. Cases were collected prospectively from January 1st 2003, to August 31st 2004. Routine cervical and chest x-ray were obtained in most of the cases. For patients with negative x-ray, further radiographic investigations were performed (barium swallow and CT scan). All patients with a history of esophageal FB were considered emergencies, and interventions were performed in the operating theater. The vast majority of the coins were removed under direct laryngoscopic vision and McGill forceps using maintenance anesthesia with 2-3% halothane and 100% oxygen inhalation in the operating room. For other patients, the FBs were removed by rigid esophagoscopy under general anesthesia. Patients with postoperative complications like esophageal perforation and tracheo-esophageal fistula were referred to the general surgery department. Control x-rays were carried out in some cases. The most common age group was under 5 years old, accounting for 68.6% of the cases and the youngest patients were 3 months old, while the oldest one was 70 years old. There were 120 males (53.6%) and 104 females (46.4%). As for duration, 128 (57.1%) of the patients reached the hospital on the same day of FB swallowing, while 35 (15.6%) do not know about the presence of the FB and presented with another complaints and were discovered accidentally. Some (47 [21.1%]) patients F arrived between the 2nd and 4th day of FB ingestion, and only 14 (6.3%) patients came after more than 5 days. Regarding symptoms, the most common presenting symptoms for patients with esophageal FB were dysphagia 180 (80.4%), followed by odynophagia 132 (58.9%) then hypersalivation 72 (32.1%). The x-ray findings were positive in 184 (82.1%) cases, barium swallow was performed in 2 (0.9%), and CT scan in 2 (0.9%). The vast majority of FBs, 178 (79.5%), were located in the upper esophagus below the cricopharyngeus, 30 (13.4%) in the middle esophagus, and 13 (5.8%) in the lower esophageal sphincter. We found 2 (0.9%) FBs in the stomach and could not identify the exact location in 3 (1.3%) cases. Out of 145 coins removed, 132 (91%) were under direct laryngoscopic vision and McGill forceps, maintenance anesthesia was accomplished with 2-3% halothane and 100% oxygen inhalation. The diameter of the coins were between 2.2-2.5 cm. We used rigid esophagoscopy under general anesthesia in 92 (41%) cases and were successful in 86 (93.5%) cases. Four patients (1.8%) had complications, one (0.4%) patient with esophageal perforation with mediastinitis, one (0.4%) with tracheoesophageal fistula, and 2 (0.9%) with erosions without perforation. None underwent surgical removal and no death. As for the kinds of the FBs;

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,649
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,300
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSaudi Medical JournalMême sujetEsophageal and GI PathologyTravaux en français237 207