{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,13]],"date-time":"2026-05-13T18:05:33Z","timestamp":1778695533866,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":12,"publisher":"Georg Thieme Verlag KG","issue":"03","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2021,11,8]],"date-time":"2021-11-08T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1636329600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,7]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:p>\n          Introduction\u2003Fishbone foreign body retention is one of the most common problem with various clinical manifestations from asymptomatic, abscess formation, and perforation to mediastinitis with subsequence morbidity and mortality. Accurately identifying the location of the fishbone leads to precise removal, which, in turn, prevents serious consequences. Digital radiographs have been widely used for diagnosis, but many studies show poor sensitivity.<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n          Object\u2003The present study was designed to compare the diagnostic performances of digital radiograph and low-dose computed tomography (CT) for fishbone retention and to demonstrate the radiation dose of the two modalities.<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n          Methods\u2003We collected 2 pieces of fishbone from each of the 15 species commonly eaten in Southeast Asia. We embedded each fishbone in a fresh pig's neck, then subjected the pig's neck to lateral soft tissue neck digital radiograph. The locations to embed included tonsil, base of tongue, and upper esophagus. Then, we subjected the same specimen to a CT scan. Two experienced radiologists interpreted each image.<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n          Results\u2003Visibility in the digital radiograph group was 13%, and in CT images group, it was 87% regardless of the locations. The average radiation dose from digital radiographs was 0.4 mGy (radiation dose field), while from CT images it was 8.6 mGy (CT dose index).<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n          Conclusion\u2003Most of the common fishbones in Southeast Asia could not be visualized by digital radiograph when embedded in the neck. Computed tomography scans demonstrated better diagnostic performance of fishbone retention compared to digital radiographs, regardless of the embedded location.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0041-1735567","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2021,11,8]],"date-time":"2021-11-08T23:54:20Z","timestamp":1636415660000},"page":"e401-e406","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Diagnostic Performance of Digital Radiograph and Low-Dose Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Fishbone Retention in the Oropharynx"],"prefix":"10.1055","volume":"26","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-7004-1065","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Jirapa","family":"Chansangrat","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"School of Radiology, Medical Institute, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"194","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2021,11,8]]},"reference":[{"issue":"04","key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"318","DOI":"10.5946\/ce.2016.087","article-title":"Oroesophageal fishbone foreign body","volume":"49","author":"H U Kim","year":"2016","journal-title":"Clin Endosc"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"110","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0038-1673631","article-title":"Fishbone foreign body: the role of imaging","volume":"23","author":"A Klein","year":"2019","journal-title":"Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"679","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bpg.2013.08.009","article-title":"Foreign bodies and caustic lesions","volume":"27","author":"X Dray","year":"2013","journal-title":"Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol"},{"issue":"02","key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"156","DOI":"10.5152\/dir.2015.15187","article-title":"CT findings of accidental fishbone ingestion and its complications","volume":"22","author":"S H Venkatesh","year":"2016","journal-title":"Diagn Interv Radiol"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"261","DOI":"10.3342\/ceo.2015.8.3.261","article-title":"Analysis of clinical feature and management of fishbone ingestion of upper gastrointestinal tract","volume":"8","author":"J P Kim","year":"2015","journal-title":"Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"126","DOI":"10.1177\/102490790200900302","article-title":"Management of foreign bodies in throat: an emergency department's perspective","volume":"9","author":"H S Chiu","year":"2002","journal-title":"Hong Kong J Emerg Med"},{"issue":"83","key":"ref7","first-page":"459","article-title":"Lateral soft tissue x-ray for patients with suspected fishbone in oropharynx, a thing in the past","volume":"27","author":"A Sanei-Moghaddam","year":"2015","journal-title":"Iran J Otorhinolaryngol"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"255","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0036-1597811","article-title":"The accuracy of digital radiography for diagnosis of fishbone foreign bodies in the throat","volume":"21","author":"P Kasemsiri","year":"2017","journal-title":"Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol"},{"issue":"04","key":"ref9","first-page":"544","article-title":"Effectiveness of plain X-ray in detection of fish and chicken bone foreign body in upper aerodigestive tract","volume":"67","author":"T A Qureshi","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Pak Med Assoc"},{"issue":"11","key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2472","DOI":"10.1002\/lary.25340","article-title":"Proposal for methods of diagnosis of fishbone foreign body in the Esophagus","volume":"125","author":"S H Woo","year":"2015","journal-title":"Laryngoscope"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"20160131","DOI":"10.1259\/dmfr.20160131","article-title":"Reaching for better image quality and lower radiation dose in head and neck CT: advanced modeled and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction in combination with tube voltage adaptation","volume":"46","author":"A I Schmid","year":"2017","journal-title":"Dentomaxillofac Radiol"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"620","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jvoice.2018.02.015","article-title":"Comparative anatomy of pig arytenoid cartilage and human arytenoid cartilage","volume":"33","author":"N Gao","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Voice"}],"container-title":["International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.thieme-connect.de\/products\/ejournals\/pdf\/10.1055\/s-0041-1735567.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,7,15]],"date-time":"2022-07-15T00:10:57Z","timestamp":1657843857000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.thieme-connect.de\/DOI\/DOI?10.1055\/s-0041-1735567"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2021,11,8]]},"references-count":12,"journal-issue":{"issue":"03","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,7,14]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,7]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1055\/s-0041-1735567","archive":["Portico","CLOCKSS"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["1809-9777","1809-4864"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1809-9777","type":"print"},{"value":"1809-4864","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2021,11,8]]}}}