Department of Gastroenterology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
BMC Gastroenterol. 2020 Apr 6;20(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12876-020-01224-z.
Previous reports of foreign-body ingestion focused primarily on accidental ingestion and very few studies focused on intentional ingestion of foreign body (FB) in China. Our study aimed to compare the prevalence of different age, gender, types, locations and management of FB ingested between intentional ingestion and accidental ingestion of FB in Northern China.
A retrospective case series studied all patients with suspected FB ingestion in Digestive Endoscopy Center of Beijing Friendship Hospital, between January 2011 and January 2019. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A included the patients who intentionally ingested FBs, and Group B included the patients who accidentally ingested FBs. Patients' database (demographics, past medical history, characteristics of FB, endoscopic findings and treatments) were reviewed. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software.
Group A consisted of 77 prisoners, 2 suspects and 11 psychologically disabled persons. Group B consisted of 1020 patients with no prisoners, suspects or psychologically disabled persons. In Group A, there were no food-related foreign bodies, and the majority of FBs were metallic objects (54.44%). However in Group B, food-related FBs were the most common (91.37%). In Group A, 58 cases (64.44%) were located in the stomach, while in Group B, 893 cases (87.55%) were located in the esophagus (P < 0.05). 1096 patients successfully underwent endoscopic removal and 14 failed, including 9 cases in Group A and 5 cases in Group B. The duration of FBs impaction was longer in Group A than that in Group B (P < 0.05).
In our study, the patients who intentionally ingested FB were mainly prisoners, FBs were mostly sharp metallic objects, the duration of FBs impaction was longer, and the rate of successful endoscopic treatment was lower than that of the general population. Attention should be focused on these patients.
以往关于异物摄入的报告主要集中在意外摄入上,很少有研究关注中国故意摄入异物(FB)的情况。我们的研究旨在比较中国北方地区故意摄入和意外摄入 FB 的患者在年龄、性别、类型、部位和 FB 管理方面的差异。
本回顾性病例系列研究纳入了 2011 年 1 月至 2019 年 1 月期间在北京友谊医院消化内镜中心就诊的所有疑似 FB 摄入患者。患者分为两组:A 组为故意摄入 FB 的患者,B 组为意外摄入 FB 的患者。回顾患者的数据库(人口统计学、既往病史、FB 特征、内镜检查结果和治疗)。使用 SPSS 软件进行统计学分析。
A 组包括 77 名囚犯、2 名嫌疑人及 11 名心理障碍者。B 组包括 1020 名无囚犯、嫌疑人或心理障碍者的患者。在 A 组中,没有与食物相关的异物,大多数异物为金属物品(54.44%)。而在 B 组中,与食物相关的 FB 最为常见(91.37%)。在 A 组中,58 例(64.44%)FB 位于胃中,而在 B 组中,893 例(87.55%)FB 位于食管中(P<0.05)。1096 例患者成功进行了内镜下取出术,14 例失败,其中 A 组 9 例,B 组 5 例。A 组 FB 嵌顿时间长于 B 组(P<0.05)。
在我们的研究中,故意摄入 FB 的患者主要为囚犯,FB 多为尖锐的金属物品,FB 嵌顿时间较长,内镜治疗成功率低于普通人群。应关注这些患者。