Clinical assessment of computed tomography for detecting ingested blister packs: A single-center retrospective study

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY DEN open Pub Date : 2024-07-15 DOI:10.1002/deo2.406
Yo Ishihara, Chikamasa Ichita, Ryuhei Jinushi, Akiko Sasaki
{"title":"Clinical assessment of computed tomography for detecting ingested blister packs: A single-center retrospective study","authors":"Yo Ishihara,&nbsp;Chikamasa Ichita,&nbsp;Ryuhei Jinushi,&nbsp;Akiko Sasaki","doi":"10.1002/deo2.406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Blister pack (BP) ingestion poses serious risks, such as gastrointestinal perforation, and accurate localization by computed tomography (CT) is a common practice. However, while it has been reported in vitro that CT visibility varies with the material type of BPs, there have been no reports on this variability in clinical settings. In this study, we investigated the CT detection rates of different BPs in clinical settings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This single-center retrospective study from 2010 to 2022 included patients who underwent endoscopic foreign body removal for BP ingestion. The patients were categorized into two groups for BP components, the polypropylene (PP) and the polyvinyl chloride (PVC)/polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) groups. The primary outcome was the comparison of CT detection rates between the groups. We also evaluated whether the BPs contained tablets and analyzed their locations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>This study included 61 patients (15 in the PP group and 46 in the PVC/PVDC group). Detection rates were 97.8% for the PVC/PVDC group compared to 53.3% for the PP group, a significant difference (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). No cases of BPs composed solely of PP were detected by CT. Blister packs were most commonly found in the upper thoracic esophagus.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Even in a clinical setting, the detection rates of PVC and PVDC were higher than that of PP alone. Identifying PP without tablets has proven challenging in clinical. Considering the risk of perforation, these findings suggest that esophagogastroduodenoscopy may be necessary, even if CT detection is negative.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":93973,"journal":{"name":"DEN open","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11248714/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DEN open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Blister pack (BP) ingestion poses serious risks, such as gastrointestinal perforation, and accurate localization by computed tomography (CT) is a common practice. However, while it has been reported in vitro that CT visibility varies with the material type of BPs, there have been no reports on this variability in clinical settings. In this study, we investigated the CT detection rates of different BPs in clinical settings.

Methods

This single-center retrospective study from 2010 to 2022 included patients who underwent endoscopic foreign body removal for BP ingestion. The patients were categorized into two groups for BP components, the polypropylene (PP) and the polyvinyl chloride (PVC)/polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) groups. The primary outcome was the comparison of CT detection rates between the groups. We also evaluated whether the BPs contained tablets and analyzed their locations.

Results

This study included 61 patients (15 in the PP group and 46 in the PVC/PVDC group). Detection rates were 97.8% for the PVC/PVDC group compared to 53.3% for the PP group, a significant difference (p < 0.01). No cases of BPs composed solely of PP were detected by CT. Blister packs were most commonly found in the upper thoracic esophagus.

Conclusions

Even in a clinical setting, the detection rates of PVC and PVDC were higher than that of PP alone. Identifying PP without tablets has proven challenging in clinical. Considering the risk of perforation, these findings suggest that esophagogastroduodenoscopy may be necessary, even if CT detection is negative.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
计算机断层扫描检测误食泡罩包装的临床评估:单中心回顾性研究
目的:摄入泡罩包装(BP)会带来严重风险,如胃肠道穿孔,而通过计算机断层扫描(CT)进行准确定位是一种常见做法。然而,虽然有报告称体外 CT 可见度随 BP 的材料类型而变化,但在临床环境中却没有关于这种变化的报告。在这项研究中,我们调查了临床环境中不同 BP 的 CT 检出率:这项单中心回顾性研究的研究时间为 2010 年至 2022 年,研究对象包括因摄入 BP 而接受内窥镜异物取出术的患者。根据 BP 成分将患者分为两组,即聚丙烯(PP)组和聚氯乙烯(PVC)/聚偏二氯乙烯(PVDC)组。主要结果是比较两组之间的 CT 检出率。我们还评估了 BP 是否含有药片,并分析了药片的位置:本研究共纳入 61 例患者(PP 组 15 例,PVC/PVDC 组 46 例)。PVC/PVDC组的检出率为97.8%,而PP组为53.3%,差异显著(P < 0.01)。CT 未发现仅由 PP 组成的 BP 病例。水泡包最常见于上胸段食管:结论:即使在临床环境中,PVC 和 PVDC 的检出率也高于单纯 PP 的检出率。事实证明,在临床上识别无药片的 PP 具有挑战性。考虑到穿孔的风险,这些研究结果表明,即使 CT 检测结果为阴性,也有必要进行食管胃十二指肠镜检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PuraStat as secondary therapy for hemostasis in Mallory−Weiss syndrome with oral antithrombotic medication Correction to “The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small focal liver lesions measuring ≤2 cm” Endoscopic features of the duodenal pyloric gland adenoma: A case series of 14 patients Impact of time from diagnosis to endoscopic submucosal dissection on curability in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma The competency of the novel through-the-scope suture device for gastric mucosal defects: In vivo study in a porcine model (with video)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1