Pediatric Magnet Ingestions After Federal Rule Changes, 2009-2019

Flaherty, Michael R.; Buchmiller, Terry L.; Vangel, Mark; Lee, Lois K.

doi:10.1001/jama.2020.19153

Cited by 18 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first report of death following magnet ingestion was published in 2006 in a 20-month-old child (24). Since then, many case reports followed, and legislations and laws were established for the abandonment of magnet use (25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37).…”

Section: Clinical Presentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Magnet Ingestion in Children Management Guidelines and Prevention

Altokhais

2021

Front. Pediatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Foreign body ingestion is common in children, and most foreign bodies pass spontaneously without causing serious injuries. Ingestion of multiple high-power magnet pieces is unique and increases the risk of morbidity and mortality. The longer the duration of ingestion, the increased likelihood of complications. Various management options have been reported, and there is no consensus on the ideal management which necessitates the need for a practical algorithm. The incidence of magnet ingestion has been increasing and directly related to the laws and recalls. The aim of this review is to provide an easy and practical pathway for management and to highlight the preventive rules of the legislations and recalls.Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the list of references from all identified complete publications were searched for all publications in English-language for pediatric magnet ingestion.Conclusion: Practical and time-saving management pathways are recommended to minimize the risk of complications. Preventive rules and recalls are important for eliminating the availability of these hazardous magnets. Public awareness about the unique risks posed by these magnets if ingested is important.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Presentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the recall was overturned by the Federal Court for the District of Colorado in 2018, and the magnet sets could be sold to anyone over 14 years of age. Since then, there has been a 444% increase in magnet-related calls to the Poison Control Center (9,(30)(31)(32)(33)(34).…”

Section: Prevention and Relation To Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnet Ingestion in Children Management Guidelines and Prevention

Altokhais

2021

Front. Pediatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence of magnetic foreign body ingestion is 5 per 100,000 visits to the ED. 6 Although most magnetic foreign bodies have been reported as ingestion, there have been case reports of magnets involving the airway. According to our knowledge there is one case report and one case series of magnets involving the upper airway.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nearly missed laryngeal foreign body

Khan

2022

JACEP Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foreign body ingestion and aspiration can present as a life‐threatening emergency in children. These foreign bodies are diagnosed based on history, physical exam, and focused radiography to reduce the risk of excessive radiation. We describe a case of a 3‐year‐old child who ingested magnetic beads and presented to the emergency department with no symptoms. On a single view x‐ray of chest and abdomen, the magnetic beads were identified in the abdomen but a closer look at these single view x‐rays raised a suspicion of additional foreign bodies in the larynx. A dedicated x‐ray of the neck identified 2 more magnetic beads locked with each other on either side of the epiglottis. These laryngeal magnetic beads were nearly missed on initial x‐rays, especially because the child had no symptoms of upper airway obstruction. This case report provides further evidence that in the evaluation of radiopaque foreign bodies in children we should strongly consider “nose to rectum” x‐rays.

show abstract

“…In 2012, consumer and medical groups lobbied Congress and the CPSC with grave concerns around the safety of these objects. As a result, a ban on the production and sale of aggregable magnet sets was proposed and product recalls followed 5,6 . Fortunately, this resulted in a significant decrease in magnet‐related presentations by approximately 24.8% 6 …”

Section: What Is Already Known On This Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been increasing awareness and concern in the community about the dangers of magnets. In 2011, the US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) found several companies were in violation of manufacturing guidelines around magnet‐containing toys 4–6 . In 2012, consumer and medical groups lobbied Congress and the CPSC with grave concerns around the safety of these objects.…”

Section: What Is Already Known On This Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decade of the dangers of multiple magnet ingestion in children: A retrospective review

Chang

Yeap

Lee

et al. 2021

J Paediatrics Child Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Magnet ingestion has become more frequent in children as magnetic toys and jewellery have been popularised, with the potential to cause significant morbidity. Our aim was to describe our experience at a tertiary paediatric surgical centre. Methods Retrospective review of patients admitted with multiple magnet ingestion (January 2011‐December 2020). Division into an intervention group and conservative group. Comparisons included demographics, number of magnets and clinical outcomes. Data analysis with a Student's t‐test and ROC Curve, P value of <0.05 was significant. Results A total of 23 patients were identified with a total of 150 magnets ingested. The majority required an intervention for magnets retrieval (15/23, 65.2%), 11/15 (73.3%) surgical and 4/15 (26.7%) endoscopic. In the surgery group, 6/11 (54%) presented with an initial perforation and 1/11 (9.1%) an entero‐enteric fistula. One patient (9.1%) had a multi‐site anastomotic leak post‐operatively. The conservative group had a significantly lower median number of ingested magnets (2 (2–6) vs. 7 (2–40), P = 0.03) and median length of stay (1 (1–4) vs. 7 (1–24), P = 0.03). ROC curve analysis revealed ingestion of >3 magnets had a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% CI: 62.1–97.6%) and specificity of 87.5% (95% CI: 53.0–99.4%) for requiring an intervention. Conclusion This series highlights a significant morbidity in children with a higher incidence of intervention following ingestion of more than three magnets. There is a strong requirement for the creation and adherence to new legislature involving industry standards.

show abstract

Pediatric Magnet Ingestions After Federal Rule Changes, 2009-2019

Abstract: Ms Bilinski had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design; acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; and drafting of the manuscript: Both authors.

Cited by 18 publications

References 3 publications

Magnet Ingestion in Children Management Guidelines and Prevention

Magnet Ingestion in Children Management Guidelines and Prevention

Nearly missed laryngeal foreign body

Decade of the dangers of multiple magnet ingestion in children: A retrospective review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About