Brian S Pugmire1, Tom K Lin2, Scott Pentiuk2, Alessandro de Alarcon3,4, Catherine K Hart3,4, Andrew T Trout5. 1. Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Department of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 4. Department of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA. Andrew.Trout@cchmc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown an increase in morbidity associated with button battery ingestions in children. OBJECTIVE: To perform a comprehensive, imaging-focused review of all patients with confirmed button battery ingestions/insertions imaged at our institution in the last 15 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiology reports from Jan. 1, 2000, to July 12, 2015, were searched for the terms "battery" and "batteries." Confirmed cases of battery ingestion/insertion for which images were available were reviewed. Cases were reviewed for imaging studies performed, imaging findings, patient demographics, clinical history and management. Two pediatric gastroenterologists reviewed endoscopic images and graded mucosal injuries in selected cases. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six cases were reviewed. All patients were imaged with radiography, 19 with fluoroscopy (6.8%), and 4 with CT (1.4%). Batteries retained in the esophagus (n = 27, 9.8%) were larger in diameter on average than those that had passed distally (22.1 ± 3.3 mm vs. 13.7 ± 1.6 mm, P<0.0001). Battery diameter ≥20 mm was associated with esophageal impaction (P<0.0001) and higher grade esophageal injury (P<0.0001). Mean battery diameter was greater for patients with grade 1 or higher mucosal injury than for patients with no mucosal injury (22.1 ± 2.1 mm vs. 14.7 ± 4.5 mm, P<0.0001). Sixteen percent (4/25) of patients with grade ≥1 esophageal injury had batteries in the stomach on initial imaging. Five patients (1.8%) had serious clinical complications (e.g., esophageal perforation, tracheoesophageal fistula). CONCLUSION: Button batteries >20mm in diameter warrant increased clinical scrutiny due to higher likelihood and severity of injury. Implementation of recent pediatric gastroenterology societal guidelines will likely lead to a substantial increase in the number of CT and MRI examinations.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown an increase in morbidity associated with button battery ingestions in children. OBJECTIVE: To perform a comprehensive, imaging-focused review of all patients with confirmed button battery ingestions/insertions imaged at our institution in the last 15 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiology reports from Jan. 1, 2000, to July 12, 2015, were searched for the terms "battery" and "batteries." Confirmed cases of battery ingestion/insertion for which images were available were reviewed. Cases were reviewed for imaging studies performed, imaging findings, patient demographics, clinical history and management. Two pediatric gastroenterologists reviewed endoscopic images and graded mucosal injuries in selected cases. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six cases were reviewed. All patients were imaged with radiography, 19 with fluoroscopy (6.8%), and 4 with CT (1.4%). Batteries retained in the esophagus (n = 27, 9.8%) were larger in diameter on average than those that had passed distally (22.1 ± 3.3 mm vs. 13.7 ± 1.6 mm, P<0.0001). Battery diameter ≥20 mm was associated with esophageal impaction (P<0.0001) and higher grade esophageal injury (P<0.0001). Mean battery diameter was greater for patients with grade 1 or higher mucosal injury than for patients with no mucosal injury (22.1 ± 2.1 mm vs. 14.7 ± 4.5 mm, P<0.0001). Sixteen percent (4/25) of patients with grade ≥1 esophageal injury had batteries in the stomach on initial imaging. Five patients (1.8%) had serious clinical complications (e.g., esophageal perforation, tracheoesophageal fistula). CONCLUSION: Button batteries >20mm in diameter warrant increased clinical scrutiny due to higher likelihood and severity of injury. Implementation of recent pediatric gastroenterology societal guidelines will likely lead to a substantial increase in the number of CT and MRI examinations.
Authors: Kris R Jatana; Toby Litovitz; James S Reilly; Peter J Koltai; Gene Rider; Ian N Jacobs Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2013-07-27 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: David E Brumbaugh; Steven B Colson; John A Sandoval; Frederick M Karrer; John F Bealer; Toby Litovitz; Robert E Kramer Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Elizabeth M Sinclair; Maneesha Agarwal; Matthew T Santore; Cary G Sauer; Erica L Riedesel Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 1.602
Authors: Elizabeth M Sinclair; Matthew T Santore; Maneesha Agarwal; Jamie Kitzman; Cary G Sauer; Erica L Riedesel Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Cristina Lorenzo; Sara Azevedo; João Lopes; Ana Fernandes; Helena Loreto; Paula Mourato; Ana Isabel Lopes Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 3.418