Pediatric Esophageal Button Battery Protocol Reduces Time From Presentation to Removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate implementation of an institutional protocol to reduce the time to removal of esophageal button battery (BB) and increase use of mitigation strategies. METHODS: We developed a protocol for esophageal BB management [Zakai's Protocol (ZP)]. All cases of esophageal BB impaction managed at a tertiary care center before and after implementation from 2011 to 2023 were reviewed. Time to BB removal, adherence to critical steps, and use of mitigation strategies (honey/sucralfate, acetic acid) were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (38 pre-ZP, 13 post-ZP) were included. Median age was 2.3 years (IQR 1.3-3.4). After implementation, the time from arrival at the institution to arrival in the operating room (OR) reduced by 4.2 h [4.6 h (IQR 3.9-6.5) to 0.4 h (IQR 0.3-0.6), p < 0.001] and there was improvement in all management steps. The number of referrals direct to otolaryngology increased from 51% to 92%, arrival notification increased from 86% to 100%, avoidance of second x-ray increased from 63% to 100%, and direct transfer to OR increased from 92% to 100%. Adherence to mitigation strategies such as preoperative administration of honey or sucralfate increased from 0% to 38%, intraoperative use of acetic acid from 3% to 77%, and nasogastric tube insertion from 53% to 92%. CONCLUSION: Implementation of ZP substantially reduced the time to BB removal and the use of mitigation strategies in our tertiary care institution. Additional strategies focused on prevention of BB ingestion, and shortening the transfer time to the tertiary care hospital are required to prevent erosive complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3, Case-series Laryngoscope, 134:5170-5177, 2024.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".