Handheld metal detector versus conventional chest and abdominal plain radiography in children with suspected metallic foreign body ingestion: can we safely abandon X-rays?

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine Minerva pediatrica Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-04-02 DOI:10.23736/S2724-5276.20.05674-1
Riccardo Guanà, Elisa Bianco, Salvatore Garofalo, Emanuele Castagno, Fabio Cisarò, Riccardo Lemini, Valentina Marchese, Fabrizio Gennari
{"title":"Handheld metal detector versus conventional chest and abdominal plain radiography in children with suspected metallic foreign body ingestion: can we safely abandon X-rays?","authors":"Riccardo Guanà, Elisa Bianco, Salvatore Garofalo, Emanuele Castagno, Fabio Cisarò, Riccardo Lemini, Valentina Marchese, Fabrizio Gennari","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5276.20.05674-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ingestion of metallic foreign bodies (MFBs) is a frequent occurrence in children and is commonly diagnosed via X-rays. In recent years, the handheld metal detector (HMD) has been increasingly adopted by several pediatric hospitals as it is considered an effective and accurate diagnostic tool that avoids exposure to ionizing radiations. Sensitivity of HMD has been reported high (99.4%) in case of coin ingestion, but significantly lower (46%) when considering the ingestion of other types of MFBs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We tested the effectiveness of the HMD in diagnosing ingested MFBs in children less than 14 years of age, in our Pediatric Emergency Department (PED). We prospectively evaluated all cases of MFBs ingestion that presented at the PED of our hospital from March 2015 to July 2017.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-eight patients were included. The overall sensitivity was 63.2% (79.5% for coins, 25.5% for batteries and 56% for other objects) while the specificity was 95%. The HMD could have replaced the X-ray examination only if a MFB was detected below the xyphoid process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on our findings, a negative result of HMD is not sufficient to exclude an ingestion of MFBs. Therefore, in case of an evocative history and depending on type and size of the foreign body, a radiological investigation is still necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":18533,"journal":{"name":"Minerva pediatrica","volume":" ","pages":"803-807"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva pediatrica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5276.20.05674-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/4/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ingestion of metallic foreign bodies (MFBs) is a frequent occurrence in children and is commonly diagnosed via X-rays. In recent years, the handheld metal detector (HMD) has been increasingly adopted by several pediatric hospitals as it is considered an effective and accurate diagnostic tool that avoids exposure to ionizing radiations. Sensitivity of HMD has been reported high (99.4%) in case of coin ingestion, but significantly lower (46%) when considering the ingestion of other types of MFBs.

Methods: We tested the effectiveness of the HMD in diagnosing ingested MFBs in children less than 14 years of age, in our Pediatric Emergency Department (PED). We prospectively evaluated all cases of MFBs ingestion that presented at the PED of our hospital from March 2015 to July 2017.

Results: Ninety-eight patients were included. The overall sensitivity was 63.2% (79.5% for coins, 25.5% for batteries and 56% for other objects) while the specificity was 95%. The HMD could have replaced the X-ray examination only if a MFB was detected below the xyphoid process.

Conclusions: Based on our findings, a negative result of HMD is not sufficient to exclude an ingestion of MFBs. Therefore, in case of an evocative history and depending on type and size of the foreign body, a radiological investigation is still necessary.

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
手持金属探测器与传统胸腹x线平片对疑似金属异物摄入的儿童:我们能安全地放弃x光吗?
背景:儿童摄入金属异物(MFBs)是一种常见的疾病,通常通过x射线诊断。近年来,手持金属探测器(HMD)越来越多地被一些儿科医院采用,因为它被认为是一种有效和准确的诊断工具,可以避免暴露于电离辐射。据报道,在摄入硬币的情况下,HMD的敏感性很高(99.4%),但在考虑摄入其他类型的mfb时,敏感性明显较低(46%)。方法:我们在儿科急诊科(PED)测试了HMD诊断14岁以下儿童摄入性mfb的有效性。我们前瞻性评估了2015年3月至2017年7月在我院PED就诊的所有mfb摄入病例。结果:纳入98例患者。总体灵敏度为63.2%(硬币79.5%,电池25.5%,其他物体56%),特异性为95%。只有在棘突下方发现MFB时,HMD才可以代替x线检查。结论:根据我们的研究结果,HMD阴性结果不足以排除mfb的摄入。因此,如果有令人回忆的病史,根据异物的类型和大小,放射检查仍然是必要的。
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
Minerva pediatrica
Minerva pediatrica PEDIATRICS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.80%
发文量
1
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Pediatrica publishes scientific papers on pediatrics, neonatology, adolescent medicine, child and adolescent psychiatry and pediatric surgery. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work.
期刊最新文献
A qualitative study of pediatric nurses' perception of factors affecting negotiation of care in a Pediatric Stem Cell Transplant Unit. The use of analgesics in pediatric patients with body injuries in pre-hospital conditions. Respiratory polygraphy in children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a retrospective study. Evaluation of factors affecting total nucleated cells in umbilical cord blood collected for the Calabria Cord Blood Bank. Risk factors associated with wheezing in severe pediatric community-acquired pneumonia: a retrospective study.
×
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