Observation of Emergency Department Adult Patient Presenting Primary Symptoms of Upper Digestive Tract Oreign Body Ingestion.
- Author:
Myung Bo SHIM
1
;
Jae Wook PARK
;
Hong In PARK
;
Jin Kun BAE
;
Sang Mo JE
;
Tae Nyoung CHUNG
;
Eui Chung KIM
;
Sung Wook CHOI
;
Ok Jun KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Emergency Medicine, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. galen97@chamc.co.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Foreign bodies;
Remove;
Factor;
Endoscopes
- MeSH:
Adult*;
Eating*;
Emergencies*;
Emergency Service, Hospital*;
Endoscopes;
Endoscopy;
Foreign Bodies;
Gastrointestinal Tract*;
Humans;
Laryngoscopes;
Medical Records;
Retrospective Studies;
ROC Curve
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
2015;26(5):379-386
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to search for factors which can help in deciding on proper treatment for patients who visit the Emergency department (ED) with symptoms of foreign body ingestion. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of medical records of ED patients with primary symptoms of foreign body ingestion. The patients' demographic data, elapsed time since the ingestion, type of foreign body, symptoms, and the method of removal were analyzed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used for analysis of whether these factors can be used to decide on proper treatment. RESULTS: Among 321 patients, a foreign body was removed successfully in 285 patients and the foreign body was not found in the remaining 36 patients. Of the successfully treated cases, 76 were removed grossly, 133 were removed using a laryngoscope, 74 were removed with endoscopy, and 2 were removed spontaneously. Comparing the group in which a foreign body was found and the other group, there was a significant difference in elapsed time since the onset of symptoms (p=0.013) and the type of foreign body (p=0.001). There was no significant reliable factor which can predict the existence of a foreign body. CONCLUSION: There was no significant factor which can predict the existence of a foreign body. Considering that the foreign body was found in most suspected patients, and that numerous patients in which a foreign body was not found had shown signs of complications due to foreign body, constructive treatment should be advocated.
