Case series documents successful Foley catheter retrieval of oesophageal foreign bodies in infants, suggesting a viable alternative to endoscopy.
Introduction: Infants are the most vulnerable population to oesophageal foreign bodies(EFB). They explore their environment with reflex hand-to-mouth gestures, putting them at even more risk. The presentation may be obvious and symptomatic, such as airway compromise, or silent, with subtle signs like drooling or refusal to feed. Therefore, the vigilance and awareness of parents and guardians are crucial for rapid diagnosis and management. Case Series: We present two infants, a 12-month-old male and a 9-month-old male, with no relevant medical histories, brought in by their mothers with similar complaints of drooling and suspicion of ingestion of a coin at two different hospitals. A thorough clinical examination ruled out any signs of respiratory compromise; consequently, a chest X-ray was performed for both patients, revealing a coin at the thoracic inlet. Physicians trained in the concept of retrieval of EFB under mild sedation with a Foley catheter resulted in the successful retrieval of approximately 24mm coins with accompanying symptom resolution. Intervention: While endoscopy remains the gold standard for EFB removal, alternative methods like Foley catheter extraction can be effective in selected cases. These cases highlight the usefulness of the Foley catheter method as a cost-effective, minimally invasive alternative for EFB removal in resource-limited settings. Proper patient selection, imaging confirmation, and procedural expertise are essential to minimize risks. Conclusion: This technique is particularly suitable for blunt, radiopaque objects located in the upper oesophagus and for cooperative patients. These cases emphasise the importance of adaptable clinical strategies in emergency care, especially where endoscopic resources are limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wunde et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: