Rectal Foreign Body in South Asia: A Systematic Review
Clicks: 1
ID: 314156
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #240 of 254 articles by views in Yemen Journal of Medicine
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 254 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
This systematic review aims to analyze patient demographics, insertion routes, intent, types of foreign bodies, clinical presentations, complications, and outcomes of rectal foreign bodies (RFBs) in South Asia, and to propose a management algorithm. A systematic review of case reports and case series was conducted following PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria included case reports/series of RFBs from South Asian countries with the foreign body in situ or displaced to an adjacent organ. Exclusion criteria comprised non-English articles and unavailable full texts. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched on March 5, 2023, without date restrictions. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports. Data were synthesized narratively, with descriptive statistics (means, SD, and frequencies) and chi-square tests for associations, using MS Excel and JASP 0.17.3.0. The review included 108 cases from 59 case reports/series, predominantly males (95 males, 11 females, 2 unspecified), with a mean age of 33.95 years (±15.09 SD). Transanal insertion (87 cases) was the most common route, followed by ingested (14 cases) and iatrogenic (7 cases) RFBs. Management involves imaging (X-rays/computed tomography), manual or endoscopic retrieval, and surgical intervention for complications like perforation (9.2%) or peritonitis (16.9%). Post-extraction sigmoidoscopy and psychological evaluation are crucial. The diversity of the foreign objects and variability in presentations require a high index of suspicion and a sensitive and structured clinical approach.
| Reference Key |
2026rectal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Shivam Pandey, Susmita Khadka Chhetri, Aayucee Agrawal, Chahana Pathak, Sushant Thapa, Meraj Kamal, Bolbam Rajak, Arati Bartaula, Sasi Bhushan Kushwaha, Parbatraj Regmi |
| Journal | Yemen Journal of Medicine |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.63475/yjm.v5i1.0344
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.