Foreign Body Ingestion Flashcards
Discuss esophageal foreign bodies.
Esophageal foreign bodies represent a common clinical challenge for pediatric surgeons.
These children often present with chest pain, dysphagia, and inability to swallow.
Both rigid and flexible esophagoscopy are acceptable techniques.
Recent investigative work has focused on cost of care and consideration for advancement of the foreign body into the stomach.
Most of these cases are performed under general anesthesia.
The anesthesia team should be alerted to the increased possibility of tooth injury or accidental endotracheal tube dislodgement during the procedure.
Complications are increased with children suffering from esophageal food impaction or button battery ingestion.
These children are best served with early intervention.
Surgeons should have a host of techniques available for successful intervention.
What are the most common esophageal foreign bodies?
In the United States, coins represent the most common esophageal foreign bodies; however fish bones are more common worldwide.
What are the most common sites for esophageal foreign body impaction?
There are three areas of anatomical narrowing in the esophagus that could serve
as potential areas of impaction. These include the cricopharyngeus sling (70%), the level of the aortic arch in the mid esophagus (15%), and the lower esophageal
sphincter (15%).
Should contrast examinations be routinely used to localize an esophageal
foreign body?
A contrast examination should not be performed routinely primarily because of the risk of aspiration and secondarily because coating of the foreign body and esophageal mucosa compromises subsequent esophagoscopy.
Describe the workup for suspected radiopaque and radiolucent foreign bodies.
Radiopaque objects can easily be detected with routine chest x-ray; however radiolucent ones may require additional imaging.
Contrast esophagram is an option in select patients who can protect their airway.
Injected volume should be limited. A high index of clinical suspicion for a radiolucent foreign body combined with appropriate physical findings such as drooling may mandate esophagoscopy.
How commonly will lodged esophageal coins pass spontaneously?
Coins pass naturally in up to 20 to 30% of children within 24 hours.
Criteria that may influence passage including child’s age, time of esophageal lodging, and type of coin are unpredictable.
Distal esophageal coins pass more commonly than proximal coins.
Thus a period of observation in select patients and consideration of a repeated x-ray is warranted prior to an invasive procedure [1, 2].
Are sharp esophageal foreign bodies managed differently than smooth?
Smooth foreign bodies, with the exception of button batteries, rarely cause significant esophageal problems.
Interestingly, small sharp objects and straight pins can be managed conservatively in the majority of cases.
Larger sharp esophageal for- eign bodies such as nails, needles, screws, and bones have a risk of perforation of 15–35% and thus should be managed with endoscopic retrieval [3].
What options exists for removal of an esophageal foreign body?
A successful endoscopist must have competence in several techniques when approaching a child with an esophageal foreign body.
Foley balloon extraction, flexible and rigid esophagoscopy (using various graspers), direct laryngoscopy, and push esophagoscopy are commonly described techniques.
Describe the technique for Foley balloon extraction
This technique requires the fluoroscopic placement of a Foley catheter just distal to the foreign body.
Once catheter position has been confirmed, contrast is placed in the Foley balloon.
The catheter is then slowly withdrawn until the foreign body is expressed or readily visualized in the oral pharynx.
Children should be restrained, but sedatives are not required.
Resuscitation equipment should be readily available.
What is the success rate for Foley balloon extraction of esophageal foreign
bodies?
Foley balloon extraction with fluoroscopy has been shown to have an 80% success rate [4].
What are the fiscal benefits of Foley balloon extraction of esophageal foreign bodies?
Published data suggest significant potential cost savings for Foley balloon extraction compared to standard endoscopy under general anesthesia.
Cost for Foley balloon extraction averaged $1231 versus $3615 for standard endoscopy [5].
What techniques can be used for very proximal esophageal foreign bodies lodged at the cricopharyngeus sphincter?
At times, especially in a young child, an esophageal foreign body can be lodged in the most proximal portion of the esophagus making standard esophagoscopy, whether rigid or flexible, more challenging.
In these cases, practitioners may opt to use a Miller direct laryngoscope blade to expose the proximal esophagus and Magill forceps to retrieve the foreign body.
Straight laparoscopic graspers are helpful if the Magill forceps prove to bulky for a small mouth.
How are esophageal coins differentiated from esophageal button batteries?
Both esophageal coins and button batteries have a similar look on initial plain film.
They share a similar size and are smooth and round.
However, with closer inspection, one will note the double lucency shadow consistent with button batteries (Figs. 8.1 and 8.2).
This key finding is critical to detect and will influence timing of surgery and possible complications.
Why are button batteries treated with more urgency than other esophageal foreign bodies?
Esophageal button battery ingestion should be treated as a true pediatric surgical emergency.
Standard NPO guidelines do not apply.
Button battery ingestions are associated with increased morbidity secondary to rapid tissue injury that occurs through leakage of alkali solution.
Liquefaction necrosis of the esophageal mucosa and muscularis can advance rapidly.
Experience suggests that initial mucosal injury may occur with contact time as little as one hour.
Describe alternative management for esophageal button battery impaction if the battery cannot be retrieved via standard esophagoscopy.
Button batteries can be pushed into the stomach where most can successfully pass throughout the gastrointestinal tract without consequence.
Alternatively, a basket can be used to retrieve the gastric button battery at the time of esophagoscopy or if the patient manifests postoperative signs or symptoms of injury to the gastrointestinal tract.
Surgeons should consider retrieving button batteries larger than 20 mm diameter that remain in the stomach greater than 48 hours as determined by x-ray.
Emetics are not beneficial in the management of disk battery ingestions, and cathartics and acid suppression have no proven role in treatment of battery ingestion [6].
Are special studies required following esophageal button battery removal?
This depends on the assessment of the esophageal mucosa at the time of button battery removal.
If concern exists, then an intraoperative esophagram or formal esophagram in the radiology department is warranted.
Mucosal irregularities and contained perforations are possible.
When concern exists, placement of a distal nasogastric feeding tube is helpful to allow direct enteral feeds while the esophageal mucosal injury heals.
In the absence of progressive symptoms, repeated esophagram in one week is recommended.
Describe the short and long term complications of button battery impaction
Short term complications include mucosal injury and possible full thickness injury with esophageal contained perforation or even free rupture.
Long term complications include tracheoesophageal fistula, stricture, and death.
What techniques are available to manage esophageal food impaction?
Both flexible and rigid esophagoscopy are practiced.
One benefit of rigid open channel esophagoscopy includes the use of internal extraction forceps to remove larger chunks of food (often chicken or hot dogs) or other debris without having to remove the rigid scope.
With patience, the job can also be accomplished with flexible techniques using the coin grasper or other grasping forceps.
However larger pieces cannot be removed inside the flexible scope. The scope must be removed multiple times as small pieces are extracted.
With repeated withdrawals and advancements of the flexible scope, one must be very attentive not to cause an accidental dislodgement of an endotracheal tube.
Can the esophageal foreign body simply be advanced into the stomach and be allowed to pass naturally?
Historically, “pull techniques” have been favored over “push techniques.”
Recent data suggests that both techniques are safe and have similar success rates at 65% and 68% respectively [7].
If one technique is not successful, conversion to the other is the next move. Of note, in children with previous esophageal surgery the practitioner must be aware of a possible distal esophageal stricture.
How do you recognize and manage incidental extubation during esophagoscopy?
Most pediatric anesthesiologists require endotracheal intubation prior to attempted removal of an esophageal foreign body.
Security of the endotracheal tube should be paramount.
In less experienced hands or in cases of repeated placement of the esophagoscope, dislodgement can occur.
Oxygen desaturation and loss of end tidal CO2 are early indicators for accidental extubation.
The surgeon should immediately withdraw the esophagoscope and allow the child to receive positive pressure ventilation and repeated intubation.
Are tooth injuries common during esophagoscopy?
Generally speaking, tooth injuries in children should be uncommon.
However, the exploring nature of children often coincides when they may be losing their deciduous teeth.
Inspection of the oral cavity and documentation of loose teeth is recom- mended before proceeding.
Use of an endoscopic mouth guard is recommended with flexible esophagoscopy.
When rigid esophagoscopy is employed, mindful attention to not rear back or rest the scope of the upper teeth is prudent.
How common are tracheobronchial foreign bodies?
The aspiration of tracheobronchial foreign bodies is fortunately not common.
However, asphyxiation caused by an inhaled laryngeal or tracheobronchial foreign bodies is one of the leading causes of accidental death in children under the age of 4 years in many countries.
In Europe, a retrospective study of 19 European countries was undertaken to determine the incidence of airway foreign bodies between 2000 and 2002 [1].
Cases were identified using hospital discharge records and International Classification of Disease (ICD-9) codes.
During this time period, 170 cases of laryngeal of pharyngeal foreign bodies (ICD 933) and 552 cases of tracheobronchial foreign bodies (ICD 934) were identified.
In the United States, non-choking rates were reviewed by the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [2].
In 2001, approximately 17,537 children aged 14 years or less were treated in emergency departments for choking related episodes.
This incidence corresponds to a rate of 29.9 per 100,000 population.
The rates were reported for specific age groups.
What is the age distribution of tracheobronchial foreign bodies?
In a European study, there was a higher reported incidence of tracheobronchial foreign body aspiration in males (63%) and the median age at presentation was 2 years [1].
In a review of cases presenting at a tertiary care center in Eastern India, 82 cases were identified between 2001 and 2008 [3].
The most common age at presentation was between 1 and 3 years (56.4%).
In the US, the highest rates of non-fatal choking events were found for infants aged <1 year (140.4 per 100,000 population) [2].
Overall, 82.3% of all cases were in children 0–4 years of age.
As found in the European study, most of the cases were in males (55%).
In a more recent review of the English literature, 12,979 children with suspected (11,145 cases confirmed) foreign body aspiration were reported between 2000 and 2010 [4].
Most of the children were under the age of 3 years.
The median age range was 1–2 years and the mean age range was 2.1–3.8 years.
It should be noted that foreign body aspiration is also reported in adolescents.
In these instances, the adolescent is commonly neurodevelopmentally delayed or incapacitated by alcohol or drug use.
In this age group, non-food foreign bodies are more common (pins, coins, pen caps, etc.).
Why are tracheobronchial foreign bodies most common in very young children?
There are several factors that predispose very young children to accidental for- eign body aspiration [5].
A major factor is their inherent oral curiosity.
Infants typically explore their environment by placing objects in their mouth.
This behaviour can be particularly problematic when they begin to crawl or walk and gain access to many objects.
Young children lack molars to grind food adequately and prematurely swallow large food boluses.
Choking on food substances can occur when the children are given unsuitable foods such as nuts or raw vegetables by an unsuspecting parent or young sibling.
Young children typically demonstrate active behaviours while eating which may also predispose to accidental choking.
Finally, young children have very small airways that are susceptible to complete blockage of the airway by foods with a round shape such as uncut grapes and hotdogs.