Evidence Hub

Pediatric Aural Foreign Body Extraction: Comparison of Efficacies Among Clinical Settings and Retrieval Methods

Shih M, Brock L, Liu YC

Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2021

366 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of aural foreign body (FB) extractions among medical care settings and determine if certain methods of extraction resulted in higher failure rates and procedural complications.

STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review.

SETTING: Emergency departments (EDs), urgent cares (UCs), pediatric primary care providers (PCPs), and otolaryngologists (ENTs).

METHODS: A total of 366 pediatric patients with EAC foreign bodies at a tertiary children's hospital and associated satellite clinics.

RESULTS: The ED/UCs (17.46%), PCPs (75.22%), and ENTs (94.54%) exhibited highly variable success rates for pediatric aural FB extractions. Complications were considerably higher for attempts by ED/UCs (22.22%) as compared with PCPs (2.61%) and those of unclear etiology (2.73% of all attempts). Use of balloon-tipped catheters and adhesive-tipped probes (eg, cyanoacrylate/superglue) for FB extraction exhibited 0% success rates with high severity of complications.

CONCLUSION: Our statistics provide an example in which ED/UCs had higher failure rates at pediatric aural FB removals when compared with PCPs and ENTs. If a single provider (PCP or ED/UC) fails to retrieve an aural FB or if the provider is not comfortable conducting the procedure, then referral to an ENT is preferable to another PCP or ED/UC. Our evidence reveals that balloon-tipped catheters and adhesive-tipped probes for FB removal in the pediatric population are prone to failure and higher…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 366 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free