Abstract
Introduction
This paper intends to present, also referring to the literature, the diagnosis and treatment stages of a rare esophageal foreign body case involving a patient diagnosed with MR.
Case Presentation
![]() Click Here to Zoom |
Figure 1: Posteroanterior chest radiography showing a foreign body in the upper mediastinum (blue circle). |
![]() Click Here to Zoom |
Figure 2: 2.5 cm long safety needle removed by rigid esophagoscopy. |
Discussion
Individuals with MR are usually unable to express their complaints clearly. To be able to make a correct diagnosis in time and perform early and appropriate treatment, we should consider EFB in the presence of acute symptoms such as swallowing difficulty and hypersalivation in patients with MR and try to discuss the issue with their caregivers in detail to obtain a comprehensive anamnesis. In the present case, we learned from the patient’ mother that the patient has been trying for a long time now to put metal objects into her mouth, they tried to teach her not to do this but have been unable to prevent it. We think that it is important in terms of preventive medicine to inform the relatives of patients with MR about the significance of EFB and its possible complications to prevent recurrent EFBs.
The main purpose of EFB is to remove the foreign body as soon as possible without damaging the surrounding tissues. Otherwise, delayed intervention or late diagnosis complicates treatment and can lead to serious and life-threatening complications [4]. Today, two methods are applied: Flexible and rigid esophagoscopy. While gastroenterologists advocate flexible, surgeons prefer rigid esophagoscopy [5]. Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages, and a common consensus has not emerged for either method [6]. Flexible esophagoscopy also has the advantages of better visualization of the distal esophagus, better overall patient comfort, shorter procedure time, less post-procedural dysphagia, and the ability to perform the procedure with sedation. In rigid esophagoscopy, the advantages include easier access to the proximal esophagus, a larger lumen that allows the use of larger grasping forceps to remove large, irregular and sharp-edged foreign bodies, the ability to remove sharp-edged foreign bodies by taking them into the lumen and causing less trauma to the esophagus and also providing safer airway protection [7]. The complication rate of rigid endoscopy for airway or esophageal FB is low (0.2%-5%) and mortality is rare (<0.1%) [8]. A rigid esophagoscopy under general anaesthesia should be preferred in MR cases for its ease and not requiring patient cooperation [5]. In our patient with mental retardation, we preferred rigid esophagoscopy under general anesthesia because of the possibility of inability to establish effective cooperation during the foreign body removal procedure, the potential for complications due to sudden movements of the patient and to ensure airway safety. An endoscopic removal of a sharp-pointed object such as a safety needle as we encountered in our case requires caution to avoid injury in the mucosa and muscle tissues of the esophagus. Otherwise, potentially mortal complications such as esophageal perforation, abscess, mediastinitis, empyema, fistula formation and sepsis may occur. In our patient, the safety needle was open, and its body part was facing up. Demiroren has already explained in detail in the literature how safety needle in this position can be removed safely [9]. However, in our case, the open piercing tip of the safety needle was stuck in the esophageal mucosa. For this reason, the tip was first pulled to the inner part of the lumen and then bent towards the clasp; the object was held with forceps from its body part and removed safely.
In conclusion, unusual EFBs such as a safety needle may be encountered in patients with MR. The care to be taken during the removal of such sharp-pointed objects by way of rigid esophagoscopy will prevent complications.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect
to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support.
Authors’ contribution
SK,OT,AB: have given substantial contributions to the
literature search, data collection, study design, analysis of
data, manuscript preparation and review of manuscript,
OT, AB: analysis interpretation of the data and review of
manuscript. All authors have participated to drafting the
manuscript, SK,OT: revised it critically. All authors read
and approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors
read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Reference
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/).

