Seung Hoon Woo1,2, Kyung Hee Kim3. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea. 2. the Institute of Health Sciences, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea. 3. College of Nursing, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the methods of diagnosis of fish bone foreign body in the esophagus and suggest a diagnostic protocol. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: A prospective study was performed on 286 patients with a history of fish bone foreign body impaction. Among them, 88 patients had negative findings in the oral cavity and laryngopharynx. Subsequent radiologic assessment of these patients included plain radiography and computed tomography (CT). Sixty-six patients showed positive findings in the esophagus, and an attempt was made to remove the obstruction using transnasal esophagoscopy. RESULTS: In 66 patients, a fish bone foreign body was detected in the esophagus by CT. In contrast, plain radiography detected a foreign body in only 30 patients. The overall detection rate of plain radiography compared with CT for fish bones was 45.5%. Plain radiography detected 35.9% of the simple type fish bones and 54.5% of the gill bone detected by CT. However, jaw bones had a detection rate of 100% with both methods. The fish bone foreign bodies were most commonly located in the upper esophagus (n=65, 98.5%), followed by the lower esophagus (n=1, 1.5%). CONCLUSION: CT is a useful method for identification of esophageal fish bone foreign bodies. Therefore, CT should be considered as the first-choice technique for the diagnosis of esophageal fish bone foreign body. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the methods of diagnosis of fish bone foreign body in the esophagus and suggest a diagnostic protocol. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: A prospective study was performed on 286 patients with a history of fish bone foreign body impaction. Among them, 88 patients had negative findings in the oral cavity and laryngopharynx. Subsequent radiologic assessment of these patients included plain radiography and computed tomography (CT). Sixty-six patients showed positive findings in the esophagus, and an attempt was made to remove the obstruction using transnasal esophagoscopy. RESULTS: In 66 patients, a fish bone foreign body was detected in the esophagus by CT. In contrast, plain radiography detected a foreign body in only 30 patients. The overall detection rate of plain radiography compared with CT for fish bones was 45.5%. Plain radiography detected 35.9% of the simple type fish bones and 54.5% of the gill bone detected by CT. However, jaw bones had a detection rate of 100% with both methods. The fish bone foreign bodies were most commonly located in the upper esophagus (n=65, 98.5%), followed by the lower esophagus (n=1, 1.5%). CONCLUSION: CT is a useful method for identification of esophageal fish bone foreign bodies. Therefore, CT should be considered as the first-choice technique for the diagnosis of esophageal fish bone foreign body. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.