Ingested or Aspirated Foreign Body-Child

Variant: 1 Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
Radiography neck chest abdomen and pelvis	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
Radiography neck	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
Radiography abdomen and pelvis	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography chest decubitus view	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
US abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	May Be Appropriate	O
Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Child. Suspect aspirated foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography chest decubitus view	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Mariana L. Meyers, MD^a; Michael M. Moore, MD^b; Joe B. Baker, MD^c; Michael N. Clemenshaw, MD, MS^d; Matthew L. Cooper, MD^e; Matthew R. Hammer, MD^f; Susan D. John, MD^g; Afif Kulaylat, MD^h; Joyce Li, MD, MPHⁱ; Sagar J. Pathak, MD^j; Jonathan D. Samet, MD^k; Marla B.K. Sammer, MD, MHA^l; Gary R. Schooler, MD^m; Amit S. Sura, MD, MBAⁿ; Catharine M. Walsh, MD, PhD, MEd^o; Ramesh S. Iyer, MD, MBA^p.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
D. CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
E. CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
F. CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
G. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
H. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
I. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
J. Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
K. Fluoroscopy upper GI series

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
L. Radiography abdomen

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
M. Radiography abdomen and pelvis

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
N. Radiography chest

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
O. Radiography chest decubitus view

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
P. Radiography neck

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
Q. Radiography neck chest abdomen and pelvis

Variant 1: Child. Suspect ingested or aspirated foreign body. Initial imaging.
R. US abdomen

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
D. CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
E. CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
F. CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
G. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
H. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
I. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
J. Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
K. Fluoroscopy upper GI series

Variant 2: Child. Suspect ingested foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
L. US abdomen

Variant 3: Child. Suspect aspirated foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Child. Suspect aspirated foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
A. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 3: Child. Suspect aspirated foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
B. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Child. Suspect aspirated foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
C. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Child. Suspect aspirated foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
D. Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram

Variant 3: Child. Suspect aspirated foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
E. Fluoroscopy upper GI series

Variant 3: Child. Suspect aspirated foreign body. Initial radiographs negative. Next imaging study.
F. Radiography chest decubitus view

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Johansen A, Conners GP, Lee J, Robinson AL, Chew WL, Chan SS. Pediatric Esophageal Foreign Body: Possible Role for Digital Tomosynthesis. Pediatric Emergency Care. 37(4):208-212, 2021 Apr 01.Pediatr Emerg Care. 37(4):208-212, 2021 Apr 01.
2.	Litovitz TL, Klein-Schwartz W, White S, et al. 2000 Annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med 2001;19:337-95.
3.	Nutman TB, Ottesen EA, Cohen SG. The eosinophil, eosinophilia, and eosinophil-related disorders. IV. Eosinophil related disorders (continued). Allergy Proc 1989;10:47-62.
4.	Seghers VJ, Kan JH, Somcio R, Sher AC, Paul Guillerman R, Sammer MBK. CT imaging of esophageal foreign bodies in children: a pictorial essay. Japanese Journal of Radiology. 40(3):262-270, 2022 Mar.Jpn J Radiol. 40(3):262-270, 2022 Mar.
5.	Little DC, Shah SR, St Peter SD, et al. Esophageal foreign bodies in the pediatric population: our first 500 cases. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 41(5):914-8, 2006 May.J Pediatr Surg. 41(5):914-8, 2006 May.
6.	Laya BF, Restrepo R, Lee EY. Practical Imaging Evaluation of Foreign Bodies in Children: An Update. [Review]. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 55(4):845-867, 2017 Jul.Radiol Clin North Am. 55(4):845-867, 2017 Jul.
7.	Grey NEO, Malone LJ, Miller AL, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging findings following button battery ingestion. Pediatric Radiology. 51(10):1856-1866, 2021 Sep.Pediatr Radiol. 51(10):1856-1866, 2021 Sep.
8.	Litovitz T, Whitaker N, Clark L, White NC, Marsolek M. Emerging battery-ingestion hazard: clinical implications. Pediatrics 2010;125:1168-77.
9.	Orsagh-Yentis D, McAdams RJ, Roberts KJ, McKenzie LB. Foreign-Body Ingestions of Young Children Treated in US Emergency Departments: 1995-2015. Pediatrics 2019;143.
10.	Quitadamo P, Pascarella A, Gragnaniello P, et al. Esophageal food bolus impaction in pediatric age. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition. 78(6):1398-1402, 2024 Jun.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 78(6):1398-1402, 2024 Jun.
11.	Diniz LO, Towbin AJ. Causes of esophageal food bolus impaction in the pediatric population. Digestive Diseases & Sciences. 57(3):690-3, 2012 Mar.Dig Dis Sci. 57(3):690-3, 2012 Mar.
12.	Kramer RE, Lerner DG, Lin T, et al. Management of ingested foreign bodies in children: a clinical report of the NASPGHAN Endoscopy Committee. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 60:562-74, 2015 Apr.
13.	Lao J, Bostwick HE, Berezin S, Halata MS, Newman LJ, Medow MS. Esophageal food impaction in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 2003;19:402-7.
14.	Straumann A, Bussmann C, Zuber M, Vannini S, Simon HU, Schoepfer A. Eosinophilic esophagitis: analysis of food impaction and perforation in 251 adolescent and adult patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:598-600.
15.	Taskinlar H, Bahadir GB, Erdogan C, Yigit D, Avlan D, Nayci A. A Diagnostic Dilemma for the Pediatrician: Radiolucent Tracheobronchial Foreign Body. Pediatrics & Neonatology. 58(3):264-269, 2017 06.Pediatr neonatol. 58(3):264-269, 2017 06.
16.	Yang C, Hua R, Xu K, et al. The role of 3D computed tomography (CT) imaging in the diagnosis of foreign body aspiration in children. European Review for Medical & Pharmacological Sciences. 19(2):265-73, 2015.Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 19(2):265-73, 2015.
17.	Darras KE, Roston AT, Yewchuk LK. Imaging Acute Airway Obstruction in Infants and Children. [Review]. Radiographics. 35(7):2064-79, 2015 Nov-Dec.Radiographics. 35(7):2064-79, 2015 Nov-Dec.
18.	Pitiot V, Grall M, Ploin D, Truy E, Ayari Khalfallah S. The use of CT-scan in foreign body aspiration in children: A 6 years' experience. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 102:169-173, 2017 Nov.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 102:169-173, 2017 Nov.
19.	Ahmed OG, Guillerman RP, Giannoni CM. Protocol incorporating airway CT decreases negative bronchoscopy rates for suspected foreign bodies in pediatric patients. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 109:133-137, 2018 Jun.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 109:133-137, 2018 Jun.
20.	Gibbons AT, Casar Berazaluce AM, Hanke RE, et al. Avoiding unnecessary bronchoscopy in children with suspected foreign body aspiration using computed tomography. [Review]. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 55(1):176-181, 2020 Jan.J Pediatr Surg. 55(1):176-181, 2020 Jan.
21.	Sammer MBK, Kan JH, Somcio R, et al. Chest CT for the Diagnosis of Pediatric Esophageal Foreign Bodies. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology. 50(5):566-570, 2021 Sep-Oct.Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 50(5):566-570, 2021 Sep-Oct.
22.	American College of Radiology. ACR-ASER-SABI-SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Pediatric Computed Tomography (CT). Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=77+&releaseId=2
23.	Azzi JL, Seo C, McInnis G, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of computed tomography in the diagnosis of pediatric foreign body aspiration. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 165:111429, 2023 Feb.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 165:111429, 2023 Feb.
24.	Gordon L, Nowik P, Mobini Kesheh S, Lidegran M, Diaz S. Diagnosis of foreign body aspiration with ultralow-dose CT using a tin filter: a comparison study. Emergency Radiology. 27(4):399-404, 2020 Aug.EMERG. RADIOL.. 27(4):399-404, 2020 Aug.
25.	Park S, Choi DS, Shin HS, et al. Fish bone foreign bodies in the pharynx and upper esophagus: evaluation with 64-slice MDCT. Acta Radiologica. 55(1):8-13, 2014 Feb.Acta Radiol. 55(1):8-13, 2014 Feb.
26.	Giannoni CM, Guillerman RP. Computed Tomography for the Evaluation of Suspected Airway Foreign Bodies. Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine 2015;16:230-34.
27.	Adaletli I, Kurugoglu S, Ulus S, et al. Utilization of low-dose multidetector CT and virtual bronchoscopy in children with suspected foreign body aspiration. Pediatric Radiology. 37(1):33-40, 2007 Jan.Pediatr Radiol. 37(1):33-40, 2007 Jan.
28.	Bai W, Zhou X, Gao X, Shao C, Califano JA, Ha PK. Value of chest CT in the diagnosis and management of tracheobronchial foreign bodies. Pediatrics International. 53(4):515-8, 2011 Aug.Pediatr Int. 53(4):515-8, 2011 Aug.
29.	El Khoury P, Makhoul M, El Hadi C, Haber C, Rassi S. CT Scan in Children Suspected of Foreign Body Aspiration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. [Review]. Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery. 170(1):1-12, 2024 Jan.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 170(1):1-12, 2024 Jan.
30.	Haliloglu M, Ciftci AO, Oto A, et al. CT virtual bronchoscopy in the evaluation of children with suspected foreign body aspiration. European Journal of Radiology. 48(2):188-92, 2003 Nov.Eur J Radiol. 48(2):188-92, 2003 Nov.
31.	Jung SY, Pae SY, Chung SM, Kim HS. Three-dimensional CT with virtual bronchoscopy: a useful modality for bronchial foreign bodies in pediatric patients. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 269(1):223-8, 2012 Jan.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 269(1):223-8, 2012 Jan.
32.	Young CA, Menias CO, Bhalla S, Prasad SR. CT features of esophageal emergencies. [Review] [22 refs]. Radiographics. 28(6):1541-53, 2008 Oct.Radiographics. 28(6):1541-53, 2008 Oct.
33.	Luk WH, Fan WC, Chan RY, Chan SW, Tse KH, Chan JC. Foreign body ingestion: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography versus endoscopy. Journal of Laryngology & Otology. 123(5):535-40, 2009 May.J Laryngol Otol. 123(5):535-40, 2009 May.
34.	Zhu Z, Li W, Zhang L, Hu J, Wang W, Ma Z. The predictive role of dual source CT for esophageal foreign bodies. American Journal of Otolaryngology. 35(2):215-8, 2014 Mar-Apr.Am J Otolaryngol. 35(2):215-8, 2014 Mar-Apr.
35.	Liu YC, Zhou SH, Ling L. Value of helical computed tomography in the early diagnosis of esophageal foreign bodies in adults. Am J Emerg Med 31:1328-32, 2013 Sep.
36.	Wei CJ, Levenson RB, Lee KS. Diagnostic Utility of CT and Fluoroscopic Esophagography for Suspected Esophageal Perforation in the Emergency Department. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 215(3):631-638, 2020 09.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 215(3):631-638, 2020 09.
37.	Rybojad B, Niedzielska G, Niedzielski A, Rudnicka-Drozak E, Rybojad P. Esophageal foreign bodies in pediatric patients: a thirteen-year retrospective study. Thescientificworldjournal. 2012:102642, 2012.ScientificWorldJournal. 2012:102642, 2012.
38.	Sink JR, Kitsko DJ, Mehta DK, Georg MW, Simons JP. Diagnosis of Pediatric Foreign Body Ingestion: Clinical Presentation, Physical Examination, and Radiologic Findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2016;125:342-50.
39.	Fuentes Santos C, Steen B. Aspiration of barium contrast. Case Rep Pulmonol 2014;2014:215832.
40.	Fadoo F, Ruiz DE, Dawn SK, Webb WR, Gotway MB. Helical CT esophagography for the evaluation of suspected esophageal perforation or rupture. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:1177-9.
41.	Guelfguat M, Kaplinskiy V, Reddy SH, DiPoce J. Clinical guidelines for imaging and reporting ingested foreign bodies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:37-53.
42.	McCrory D, Smith C, Hampton S. Foiling the barium swallow!. BMJ Case Rep. 2019 Jan 14;12(1):bcr-2018-228083.
43.	Cheng W, Tam PK. Foreign-body ingestion in children: experience with 1,265 cases. J Pediatr Surg 1999;34:1472-6.
44.	Meyer TJ, Grunz JP, Taeger J, et al. Systematic analysis of button batteries', euro coins', and disk magnets' radiographic characteristics and the implications for the differential diagnosis of round radiopaque foreign bodies in the esophagus. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 132:109917, 2020 May.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 132:109917, 2020 May.
45.	Bolton SM, Saker M, Bass LM. Button battery and magnet ingestions in the pediatric patient. [Review]. Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 30(5):653-659, 2018 10.Curr Opin Pediatr. 30(5):653-659, 2018 10.
46.	Dedhia K, Chang YF, Leonardis R, Chi DH. Is There a Need for Repeat Radiologic Examination of Children with Esophageal Coin Foreign Body?. Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery. 156(1):173-179, 2017 01.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 156(1):173-179, 2017 01.
47.	Torrecillas V, Meier JD. History and radiographic findings as predictors for esophageal coins versus button batteries. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 137:110208, 2020 Oct.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 137:110208, 2020 Oct.
48.	Brown JC, Chapman T, Klein EJ, et al. The utility of adding expiratory or decubitus chest radiographs to the radiographic evaluation of suspected pediatric airway foreign bodies. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 61(1):19-26, 2013 Jan.Ann Emerg Med. 61(1):19-26, 2013 Jan.
49.	Haegen TW, Wojtczak HA, Tomita SS. Chronic inspiratory stridor secondary to a retained penetrating radiolucent esophageal foreign body. J Pediatr Surg 2003;38:e6.
50.	Kim N, Atkinson N, Manicone P. Esophageal foreign body: a case of a neonate with stridor. Pediatr Emerg Care 2008;24:849-51.
51.	Valdez AL, Casavant MJ, Spiller HA, Chounthirath T, Xiang H, Smith GA. Pediatric exposure to laundry detergent pods. Pediatrics 2014;134:1127-35.
52.	Stromberg PE, Burt MH, Rose SR, Cumpston KL, Emswiler MP, Wills BK. Airway compromise in children exposed to single-use laundry detergent pods: a poison center observational case series. Am J Emerg Med 33:349-51, 2015 Mar.
53.	Truong B, Luu K. Diagnostic clues for the identification of pediatric foreign body aspirations and consideration of novel imaging techniques. American Journal of Otolaryngology. 44(4):103919, 2023 Jul-Aug.Am J Otolaryngol. 44(4):103919, 2023 Jul-Aug.
54.	Mortellaro VE, Iqbal C, Fu R, Curtis H, Fike FB, St Peter SD. Predictors of radiolucent foreign body aspiration. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 48(9):1867-70, 2013 Sep.J Pediatr Surg. 48(9):1867-70, 2013 Sep.
55.	Assefa D, Amin N, Stringel G, Dozor AJ. Use of decubitus radiographs in the diagnosis of foreign body aspiration in young children. Pediatric Emergency Care. 23(3):154-7, 2007 Mar.Pediatr Emerg Care. 23(3):154-7, 2007 Mar.
56.	Black RE, Johnson DG, Matlak ME. Bronchoscopic removal of aspirated foreign bodies in children. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 29(5):682-4, 1994 May.J Pediatr Surg. 29(5):682-4, 1994 May.
57.	Burton EM, Brick WG, Hall JD, Riggs W Jr, Houston CS. Tracheobronchial foreign body aspiration in children. Southern Medical Journal. 89(2):195-8, 1996 Feb.South Med J. 89(2):195-8, 1996 Feb.
58.	Eren S, Balci AE, Dikici B, Doblan M, Eren MN. Foreign body aspiration in children: experience of 1160 cases. Annals of Tropical Paediatrics. 23(1):31-7, 2003 Mar.Ann Trop Paediatr. 23(1):31-7, 2003 Mar.
59.	Xin Y, Jia LQ, Dong YW, Wang Y, Hu YX, Wang XM. Application of high-frequency ultrasound in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal magnet ingestion in children. Front Pediatr 2022;10:988596.
60.	Buonsenso D, Chiaretti A, Curatola A, Morello R, Giacalone M, Parri N. Pediatrician performed point-of-care ultrasound for the detection of ingested foreign bodies: case series and review of the literature. Journal of Ultrasound. 24(1):107-114, 2021 Mar.J. ultrasound. 24(1):107-114, 2021 Mar.
61.	Cairns R, Brown JA, Buckley NA. Dangerous toys: the expanding problem of water-absorbing beads. Med J Aust 2016;205:528.
62.	Zamora IJ, Vu LT, Larimer EL, Olutoye OO. Water-absorbing balls: a "growing" problem. Pediatrics 130:e1011-4, 2012 Oct.
63.	Kim HB, Kim YB, Ko Y, Choi YJ, Lee J, Kim JH. A case of ingested water beads diagnosed with point-of-care ultrasound. Clin Exp Emerg Med 7:330-333, 2020 Dec.
64.	Awolaran O, Brennan K, Yardley I, Thakkar H. Water beads ingestion presenting with repeated bowel obstruction in an infant. BMJ Case Rep 2024;17.
65.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
66.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.