2016
DOI: 10.5152/dir.2015.15187
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CT findings of accidental fish bone ingestion and its complications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
56
0
5

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
56
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The most common of these are fish bones and toothpicks [148] appearing linear and hyperechoic with variable posterior acoustic shadowing. Even with CT scanning, accuracy in the detection of fish bones is dependent on the observer experience [149,150]. Secondary signs, as localized inflammation with thickened segment of the intestine, are often the leading features to detect the localisation of the foreign body [150].…”
Section: Foreign Bodiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most common of these are fish bones and toothpicks [148] appearing linear and hyperechoic with variable posterior acoustic shadowing. Even with CT scanning, accuracy in the detection of fish bones is dependent on the observer experience [149,150]. Secondary signs, as localized inflammation with thickened segment of the intestine, are often the leading features to detect the localisation of the foreign body [150].…”
Section: Foreign Bodiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The discrimination of a water-filled toothpick from a fish bone, which is one of the most common accidentally-swallowed foreign bodies (9), would be difficult because they have a similar appearance on CT (a fish bone penetration appears as a linear high density area surrounded by an area of inflammation) (10). In a similar vein, the potential pitfalls in detecting a toothpick on CT would be the presence of positive bowel contrast, artifacts related to fecal material, and contrast-enhanced small blood vessels (9). Interestingly, in our case, the toothpick was indistinct on the CT images that were taken after intravenous contrast administration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Computed tomography (CT) scan has been helpful in the detection of nonmetallic foreign body perforation. Fish bone perforation typically appears as a linear calcified lesion surrounded by an inflamed area on CT scan [6]. Evidence of pneumoperitoneum is only seen in approximately 30% of patients with intestinal perforation caused by fish bone ingestion [1].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%