Ingestion of foreign bodies among prisoners: a ten years retrospective study at University Hospital of Southern Italy

Volpi, A; Laforgia, Rita; Lozito, C.; Panebianco, Annarita; Punzo, Clelia; P, Ialongo; Carbotta, Giuseppe; Sederino, Maria Grazia; Minafra, Marina; Paterno, Anna; Palasciano, Nicola

doi:10.11138/gchir/2017.38.2.080

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the patients in our study who intentionally ingested FBs were male; however, there was no significant difference between male and female in the general population [2,9]. Most of the patients with intentional ingestion were prisoners in custody, and they could be considered as seeking secondary gains through access to a medical facility or even manipulative attempts to escape incarceration, which was similar to findings in a previous study [3].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backgrounds: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Foreign body (FB) ingestion, including food bolus impaction, is a common clinical problem in China [1,2]. Although ingestion of FB by adults is generally accidental, the intentional ingestion of FB occurs in some adults such as prisoners [3], patients with psychiatric disorders or mental retardation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of these cases occur in children as a result of curiosity and accidental ingestion, with peak incidence occurring between the ages of 6 mo and 3 years[ 2 ]. In adults, groups at higher risk include those with severe psychiatric disorders, mental retardation, acute intoxication, or seeking secondary gain ( e.g ., incarcerated individuals seeking transfer out of prison to a medical facility)[ 3 - 5 ]. Although the majority of ingested foreign bodies will traverse the gastrointestinal (GI) tract uneventfully, 10-20% will require intervention, most often endoscopic, to mitigate complications such as impaction, ulceration, perforation, and potentially death[ 6 - 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foreign object ingestion and esophageal food impaction: An update and review on endoscopic management

Fung¹,

Sweetser²,

Song³

et al. 2019

WJGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foreign body ingestion encompasses both foreign object ingestion (FOI) and esophageal food impaction (EFI) and represents a common and clinically significant scenario among patients of all ages. The immediate risk to the patient ranges from negligible to life-threatening, depending on the ingested substance, its location, patient fitness, and time to appropriate therapy. This article reviews the FOI and EFI literature and highlights important considerations and implications for pediatric and adult patients as well as their providers. Where published literature is insufficient to provide evidence-based guidance, expert opinion is included to supplement the content of this comprehensive review.

show abstract

“…8 While comparing to studies from other countries, mobile phone ingestion is common in our setup. [9][10][11] The prisoners used to vomit these drug packets rather than letting them pass out in the stool. It should be noted that these packets were intentionally made of relatively large size by the packers, so that they can stay in the stomach and can be vomited back.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2021

Journal of Digestive Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Gastric foreign bodies are a common problem brought to an endoscopist. Prisoners are more prone to ingesting unusual foreign bodies for a secondary gain. The objective of this study was to study the profile of foreign body ingestion among the prisoners brought to a tertiary care center. Methods This is a retrospective case series. All the prisoners brought for endoscopic removal of foreign bodies between January 2018 to December 2019 were included in the analysis. Patients' baseline characteristics, type of foreign body, management, and outcome were noted Results A total of eight inmates presented with ingestion of foreign body to our department. Most common foreign bodies ingested were drug packets and mobile phones. All ingestions were for secondary gain. Endoscopic removal was successful in all cases. Conclusion Endoscopic removal can be tried with all necessary precautions by an expert endoscopist.

show abstract

Ingestion of foreign bodies among prisoners: a ten years retrospective study at University Hospital of Southern Italy

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China

Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China

Foreign object ingestion and esophageal food impaction: An update and review on endoscopic management

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About