Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Injection Parameters on Drug Distribution for Spinal Anesthesia: A Numerical Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Relapse Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Cardiac Sarcoidosis: Insights from a Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Micro-URS Experience in the Treatment of Distal Ureteral Stones in Preschool-Aged Children
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Entero-Enteric Fistula Following Multiple Magnet Ingestion in Children: A Systematic Review

by
Natalia Kelaidi
1,
Konstantina Dimopoulou
2,
Dimitra Dimopoulou
3,
Aggeliki Krikri
1,
Christina Siouli
1,
Maria M. Berikopoulou
4,
Nikolaos Zavras
5 and
Anastasia Dimopoulou
1,*
1
Department of Pediatric Surgery, Children’s General Hospital “Aghia Sophia”, 115 27 Athens, Greece
2
Department of Gastroenterology, Korgialenio-Benakio Red Cross Hospital, 115 26 Athens, Greece
3
Second Department of Pediatrics, Children’s General Hospital “Aglaia & Panagiotis Kyriakou”, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 115 27 Athens, Greece
4
Second Department of Pediatrics, Children’s General Hospital “Aghia Sophia”, 115 27 Athens, Greece
5
Department of Pediatric Surgery, Attikon University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 115 27 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(17), 6235; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14176235
Submission received: 18 July 2025 / Revised: 26 August 2025 / Accepted: 1 September 2025 / Published: 3 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances and Trends in Pediatric Surgery)

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Entero-enteric fistula (EEF) formation following multiple magnet ingestion is a rare but severe complication among pediatric patients. The widespread availability of neodymium magnets in toys has increased incidence of ingestion and subsequent gastrointestinal injuries. This systematic review aims to summarize the clinical features, diagnostics, management and outcomes of pediatric EEF cases related to magnet ingestion and report our institution’s experience with four such cases. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed/Medline (January 1995–February 2025), focusing on EEF after ingestion of ≥2 magnets in patients ≤18 years old. Studies reporting original EEF cases were included. Data extraction included demographics, clinical presentation, diagnostic imaging, intervention type, fistula number/location, hospital stay, complications and outcomes. Four institutional cases were also analyzed. Results: Sixty-nine studies encompassing 130 pediatric patients were included. Median age was 3.3 years; 58% were male. The most common symptoms were abdominal pain (43%) and vomiting (29%). Abdominal X-ray identified magnets in all cases. Surgical intervention was required in 95.5%, while 5.5% were treated endoscopically. Ileal and jejunal fistulas were most common. Postoperative complications occurred in 19%, including bowel obstruction, infection and one death. Our four cases, aged 2 months to 5 years, each required surgery, with one patient readmitted for obstruction managed conservatively. Conclusions: Despite the case heterogeneity of this review, EEF is a potentially life-threatening complication of multiple magnet ingestion in children. Prompt diagnosis with abdominal X-ray and timely surgical management are essential. Increased clinical suspicion and public awareness are crucial for prevention and early intervention.

1. Introduction

Foreign body ingestion is a frequent problem among children especially between the age of 6 months and 3 years old, with mild predominance in males [1,2,3]. Multiple magnet ingestion is uncommon, but it might be dangerous due to possible serious events, resulting in bowel obstruction, perforation, fistula formation, ulceration and volvulus of the small and large intestine.
Magnet ingestion, in particular, represents a unique clinical challenge compared to other types of foreign bodies. High-powered neodymium magnets are several times stronger than conventional magnets, and when more than one is ingested or a single one combined with a metallic object, their powerful attraction across bowel loops can entrap intestinal walls (“sandwich” effect), leading to gastrointestinal damage by. More specifically, the pressure applied to the intestinal walls is enough to cause local ischemia, leading to localized necrosis, intestinal perforation or fistula formation, followed by peritonitis [4,5].
Entero-enteric fistula (EEF) formation, defined as abnormal communication between two parts of the bowel, is a relatively uncommon complication of multiple magnet ingestion among children. In this condition, an abnormal opening in the stomach or intestines allows the contents to leak into another section of the intestines [6]. Eventually, progressive bowel occlusion occurs, presenting with non-specific symptoms such as abdominal pain and vomiting, which can result in delayed diagnosis. In the existing literature, reports of EEF following multiple magnet ingestion are limited in the pediatric population [4,5].
Unlike coins or other inert objects that typically pass spontaneously, magnet ingestion often requires endoscopic or surgical intervention and is associated with significant morbidity and even mortality. Moreover, despite repeated regulatory actions and safety warnings, the incidence of magnet ingestion continues to rise, highlighting its importance as a pediatric public health concern that necessitates increased awareness among clinicians, caregivers, parents and policymakers. In order to reduce the incidence of occurrence of magnet ingestions, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) of the United States forced the manufacturer of Buckyballs to recall them, by suing them in 2012. Additionally, the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN), proposed a ban for high powered neodymium magnets sale [6]. Nevertheless, in the Western world, the incidents of ingestions of high-powered neodymium magnets are rising annually [7,8,9].
This review summarizes the available literature on the clinical features, diagnosis and management of this unusual yet challenging condition in children, in order to raise clinical suspicion and awareness. Early diagnosis of EEF following multiple magnet ingestion is essential for effective treatment and improved outcomes. Additionally, we describe our related clinical experience in four cases of EEF.

2. Cases Presentation

A total of four children, one male and three females, were diagnosed with EEF following multiple magnet ingestion at the Department of Pediatric Surgery, Agia Sofia Children’s Hospital in Athens, Greece between January 2018 and February 2025. Their ages ranged from 2 months to 5 years old, while the number of magnets ingested was 23, 10, 5 and 5, respectively. All patients presented to the emergency department with abdominal pain and vomiting. The magnets were detected in all of our patients with abdominal X-rays. A CT scan and ultrasound were performed in one patient as part of the clinical evaluation. Initially, endoscopic intervention was performed in three children, but finally all four required laparotomies. Intraoperatively, two out of four children were diagnosed with single EEF, one with two EEFs and one with three EEFs, all located in different regions. Two EEFs were jejunocecal, three were jejunojenunal, one was jejunoileal and one jejunocolic (sigmoid colon). Two patients underwent intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopy. Although a remaining magnet was identified in one patient, no further surgical interventions were needed. The length of hospitalization ranged from 9 to 14 days, and one patient required readmission within the first month due to bowel obstruction that was treated conservatively.

3. Methods

3.1. Search Strategy

A systematic literature review was conducted by two independent reviewers using the electronic database of PubMed/Medline, Scopus and Web of Science focusing on entero-enteric fistula (EEF) formation following multiple magnet ingestion in children covering a period from January 1995 to February 2025. The keywords used were “magnet ingestion”, “fistula”, “children”, “pediatric”, “fistula” and “intestine”. The search terms were combined with the Boolean operators AND/OR. The keywords were used in all possible combinations to obtain the maximal number of articles. Furthermore, the reference lists of retrieved articles were manually reviewed to identify related studies. The literature search was restricted to the English language. All articles selected for inclusion were critically evaluated.
The PRISMA 2020 checklist is available in Tables S1 and S2 of the Supplementary Material.

3.2. Study Selection

In the first step of study selection, we ruled out irrelevant studies by assessing the titles and abstracts of the articles. Afterwards, we screened the full texts of the selected studies and included only those that met the following criteria: (1) Pediatric patients (≤18 years old), (2) Ingestion of two or more magnets leading to EEF formation. (3) Original research articles, case reports and case series, including both retrospective and prospective observational studies. (4) Studies reporting on the incidence, clinical presentation, diagnostic methods, management strategies and patient outcomes related to EEF formation. (5) Articles written in English.
Review articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, expert opinions and conference abstracts were not considered. Additionally, studies on foreign body ingestion unrelated to multiple magnets, articles that did not specifically describe EEF formation following multiple magnet ingestion or those that focused on other complications were excluded. After the first screening, a title/abstract and full-text screening was performed by two independent researchers for eligibility. Any disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by a discussion reaching consensus.

3.3. Data Extraction

A standardized form was used to extract data from the included studies. Data were extracted independently by the two reviewers. The following information was extracted and recorded in the database: name of first author, year of publication, age, gender, number of ingested magnets, clinical symptoms, method of treatment, number and location of EEF, the use or not of intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopy, length of hospital stay and outcome. Categorical variables were summarized as absolute and relative (%) frequencies, while continuous variables as median and interquartile range, since they were skewed (normality was tested).

4. Results

A total of 98 articles were identified through the literature. After title and abstract evaluation, 24 articles were excluded, while 20 additional records were excluded after full-text review for not addressing entero-enteric fistula cases following multiple magnet ingestion (Figure 1). In total, the literature search revealed 69 published articles and 130 reported cases of pediatric patients with EEF [4,5,6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75] (Table 1).
The clinical and procedural characteristics of the patients enrolled in our study are presented in Table 2. The median age of our sample size was 3.3 years (ranging from 0.75 to 16 years). Moreover, the median number of ingested magnets was 11 (ranging from 1 to 62), while the vast majority of the children presented to Emergency Pediatric Department with abdominal pain and vomiting. Of note, only 11 patients were asymptomatic, with the magnets found accidentally in abdominal X-rays. In all cases, the ingested magnets were identified by abdominal X-rays (Table 2).
Regarding EEF treatment, no patient was treated conservatively. In all cases, EEF was recognized during endoscopic or surgical intervention. As a result, 6 patients (4.6%) were treated endoscopically, 104 (80%) underwent laparoscopy or laparotomy, while 20 (15%) were subjected to endoscopy followed by abdominal surgery (Table 2). Out of 124 patients who underwent laparoscopy or laparotomy, only 23 (18.5%) underwent intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopy to investigate possible remaining magnets in the abdominal cavity (Table 1).
A single EEF was identified in 76 patients, two EEFs in 10 patients, more than two EEFs in 15 patients; multiple EEFs were found in 31 patients (the specific number of them is not reported) (Figure 2). Moreover, regarding the EEF location, the most common type was ileoileal, presented in 32 patients (22%), followed by jejunoileal EEFs (27 patients, 19%). The various reported types of EEFs are illustrated in Table 3. Also, small-to-small bowel and small-to-large bowel EEFs were recognized in 13 and 3 children, respectively, without the authors reporting their exact location. Finally, in 46 cases (35%) the location of the fistula was not mentioned (Table 3).
The median duration of hospitalization was eight days (ranging from 1 to 42) for patients that were treated surgically compared to two days for those treated solely endoscopically. Only nine patients (7%) required a prolonged hospital stay. Regarding the patients’ outcome, the majority of patients (72%) had an uneventful post-operative course and follow-up period, while 22 children (17%) experienced complications. Due to these postoperative events, nine patients underwent repeat endoscopy and six re-operation (Table 4).

5. Discussion

The proportion of high-powered neodymium magnets ingestion by children is continuously increasing due to their wide availability as parts of toys, tools or entertainment products [9,76]. It is important to point out that high powered neodymium magnets compared to simple iron magnets are 5 to 20 times more powerful, thus the complications after their ingestion might be severe and fatal. Approximately 80–90% of ingested FB (except for neodymium magnets) goes right through the whole gastrointestinal tract without any event. A proportion of 10 to 20% might need endoscopic removal and less than 1% need surgical intervention [77]. EEF formation is a severe complication of multiple magnets ingestion in children and can be fatal in some cases. This systematic review of the literature sheds light on this uncommon manifestation, evaluates the efficacy of diagnostic and treatment methods and assesses the outcomes.
Our results and clinical experience revealed that the overwhelming majority of patients with EEF following multiple magnet ingestion present with vomiting or abdominal pain. Our review indicates that patients rarely present with severe symptoms such as signs of peritonitis, fever, anuria or bowel obstruction, whereas seven children were asymptomatic. These findings could be potentially attributed to parents or guardians observing the magnet ingestion, the early onset of symptoms, the immediate seeking for medical advice and the prompt diagnosis and effective treatment. On the other hand, the presentation with mild non-specific symptoms, the lack of witness to the magnet ingestion or the misdiagnosis, as the magnets are tightly attached and might appear as a single object, could lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment increasing the risk of life-threatening complications [4,9].
Plain abdominal X-ray remains the gold standard for diagnosing magnet ingestion in children and should always be performed when foreign body ingestion is reported or suspected [38]. In all cases, the ingested magnets were detected by abdominal X-ray. Moreover, there are some limitations of this diagnostic tool, especially in cases of multiple magnet ingestion, as multiple magnets could be bound together and perceived as a single object, like in one of our cases. Therefore, multiple radiologic views are recommended (Face and Profile) [33]. North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) members, recognized the severity of this issue and its significant morbidity, and developed an algorithm in 2015 contributing to the accurate diagnosis of children with magnet ingestion. According to these recommendations, multiple magnets detected in the stomach should be removed endoscopically, while those located beyond the stomach should be managed based on symptoms and magnet progression. In asymptomatic patients with no obstruction or perforation on X-ray, the progression of the magnets may be followed with serial X-rays. The presence of symptoms and lack of magnet progression are absolute indications for surgical intervention [78]. Our review highlights that X-ray is the only diagnostic tool used in the management of patients with multiple magnet ingestion. Sodagum et al. proposed the “signet ring” appearance on abdominal X-ray, as a preoperative diagnostic sign of EEF in cases of magnet ingestion. They suggested that its presence alone should be an indication for surgical intervention [61]. Based on our clinical experience, all four patients underwent surgery following abdominal X-ray, due to severe symptoms and the number of ingested magnets. EEF was diagnosed intraoperatively, as neither CT scan nor ultrasound had raised suspicion of its presence.
Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of the endoscopic method in the management of children with EEF as all patients, who were subjected to endoscopic intervention, were successfully treated with no complications and short duration of hospitalization. More specifically, in five out of these six children, the fistula was left untreated and patients had a close follow up, while one was treated with the placement of an endoclip. Of note, 10 out of 124 patients who underwent surgery were treated laparoscopically by suturing the fistulas and removing the magnets by enterotomies. None of them had any complications and their hospital stay was on average five days. The rest of the patients underwent exploratory laparotomy due to intestinal torsion, multiple fistulae, multiple perforations or abscesses, and were treated by enterotomies and suturing or enterectomies and anastomosis. Finally, the complexity of the treatment of this condition is illustrated by the significant percentage of children (17%) who developed complications, such as SSI, abdominal wall dehiscence, bowel obstruction, anastomotic leak, pneumonia and death.
For the possibility of remaining magnets, a C-arm fluoroscopy intraoperatively is indicated [78]; however, despite the current recommendations, only 23 patients underwent intraoperative fluoroscopy. C-arm fluoroscopy is an important diagnostic and must be always applied in order to prevent further investigation and re-operation.
Our study has several strengths. This systematic review includes a broad range of studies on EEF formation following multiple magnet ingestion in children. It covers a long time period incorporating the most up-to-date research on this uncommon and serious entity. Additionally, the review includes a total of 130 reported cases from 69 articles. This large sample size increases the reliability of the results providing essential information about clinical presentation, treatment strategies and outcomes associated with multiple magnet ingestion and EEF formation. In addition to the literature review, the study involves our clinical experience with four pediatric patients diagnosed with EEF following multiple magnet ingestion indicating how the pediatric patients can be treated in a real-world setting. Finally, our study describes both the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients, highlighting complications and risks associated with treatment and recovery.
However, our study has some limitations. First, there is significant heterogeneity in the number of patients, the type and number of magnets ingested reported between the studies, which could result in variability in the findings. Second, in 35% of the cases, fistula location was not reported, limiting our knowledge of the typical anatomical sites of EEFs following magnet ingestion that could effectively guide surgical decisions. Third, most of the studies included in the review are case reports or case series that are prone to publication bias. Due to the rarity and urgency of the condition, it is challenging to design randomized controlled trials and high-quality study designs that would enhance the quality of available evidence.
Finally, according to our findings and institutional experience, we suggest a pragmatic approach to the management of multiple magnet ingestion complicated by EEF. An abdominal X-ray should be performed in all suspected cases, as it reliably identifies ingested magnets. Computed tomography should be reserved for patients with unclear findings and suspicion of perforation but should not delay intervention. Endoscopic retrieval should be attempted when magnets are located in the esophagus or stomach in absence of perforation or obstruction. Once magnets have passed beyond the stomach, endoscopic retrieval is rarely successful, and close monitoring with serial X-rays or early surgical exploration is warranted. In symptomatic patients or when improvement is not observed, surgical intervention should be performed. Laparoscopy may be considered in stable children with limited findings, while laparotomy remains the procedure of choice in patients with multiple fistulae, perforation or peritonitis.

6. Conclusions

During the last two decades, an increase in the report of cases of children with incidental ingestion of multiple magnets has been observed. The diagnosis may be difficult and delayed, because of the late onset of the symptoms, usually non-specific ones and the unwitnessed cases in majority. Special awareness should be given by medical practitioners, as the complications after multiple magnet ingestion or co-ingestion of a single magnet and a metallic object could be serious. Among these major complications is the formation of EEF, which requires prompt and appropriate surgical treatment. Finally, the establishment of new regulations and safety standards to prevent these kinds of accidents is necessary.
This systematic review represents the largest synthesis of pediatric EEF cases following multiple magnet ingestion to date, encompassing 130 reported cases and four additional institutional cases. The pooled data highlights consistent diagnostic and therapeutic patterns, with abdominal X-ray identifying magnets in all patients and timely surgical or endoscopic intervention leading to favorable outcomes in the majority. These findings not only consolidate current knowledge but also provide practical guidance for clinicians, underscoring the critical importance of early recognition and intervention to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm14176235/s1, Table S1: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 abstract checklist; Table S2: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D. and N.Z.; methodology, A.D., N.K. and C.S.; software, A.K., N.K., C.S. and M.M.B.; validation, A.D., K.D. and N.Z.; formal analysis, N.K., C.S., K.D., A.D., D.D. and M.M.B.; investigation, N.K., C.S. and M.M.B.; resources, N.K., C.S. and D.D.; data curation, K.D., A.D., D.D. and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, N.K., K.D. and D.D.; writing—review and editing, C.S., A.K., A.D., N.Z. and M.M.B.; visualization, A.D.; supervision, A.D.; project administration, A.D. and N.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared at reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

EEFEntero-enteric fistula
NASPGHAN North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition

References

  1. Webb, W.A. Management of foreign bodies of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Gastroenterology 1988, 94, 204–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Chen, M.K.; Beierle, E.A. Gastrointestinal foreign bodies. Pediatr. Ann. 2001, 30, 736–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Eisen, G.M.; Baron, T.H.; Dominitz, J.A.; Faigel, D.O.; Goldstein, J.L.; Johanson, J.F.; Mallery, J.S.; Raddawi, H.M.; Vargo, J.J., II; Waring, J.P.; et al. Guideline for the management of ingested foreign bodies. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2002, 55, 802–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Al-Saied, G.; Alsamahy, O.; Ibrahim, M.; Al-Malki, T.; BenMalek, R.; Khemekhem, R.; AlNefaie, Z.; Hussain, T.; Shafik, Y.; Thabet, R.; et al. Enteroenteric fistulae after ingestion of multiple magnets in children. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2022, 76, 102090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Miyamoto, R.; Okuda, M.; Kaneko, K.; Numoto, S.; Okumura, A. Multiple Magnets Ingestion Followed by Intestinal Fistula with Mild Symptoms. Glob. Pediatr. Health 2019, 6, 2333794X19855805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Blevrakis, E.; Raissaki, M.; Xenaki, S.; Astyrakaki, E.; Kholcheva, N.; Chrysos, E. Multiple magnet ingestion causing intestinal obstruction and entero-enteric fistula: Which imaging modality besides radiographs? A case report. Ann. Med. Surg. 2018, 31, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Strickland, M.; Rosenfeld, D.; Fecteau, A. Magnetic foreign body injuries: A large pediatric hospital experience. J. Pediatr. 2014, 165, 332–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brown, J.C.; Otjen, J.P.; Drugas, G.T. Too attractive: The growing problem of magnet ingestions in children. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2013, 29, 1170–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Prisco, G.; Celinski, S.; Spak, C.W. Chapter 29—Abdominal abscesses and gastrointestinal fistulas. In Sleisenger & Fordtran’s Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease; Feldman, M., Friedman, L.S., Brandt, L.J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mostafa, M.S.; Darwish, A.A. Magnet ingestion in children and its implications: Tertiary centre experience. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2021, 37, 937–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chavan, R.; Bachkaniwala, V.; Tadkalkar, V.; Gandhi, C.; Rajput, S. Endoscopic management of magnet ingestion and its adverse events in children. VideoGIE 2022, 7, 302–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Seguier-Lipszyc, E.; Samuk, I.; Almog, A.; Silbermintz, A.; Kravarusic, D. Multiple magnet ingestion in children: A problem on the rise. J. Paediatr. Child Health 2022, 58, 1824–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mandhan, P.; Alsalihi, M.; Mammoo, S.; Ali, M.J. Troubling Toys: Rare-Earth Magnet Ingestion in Children Causing Bowel Perforations. Case Rep. Pediatr. 2014, 2014, 908730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dias, D.D.M.; Amorim, W.W.S.; Rodriguez, J.E.R.; Cauduro, J.F.; Pena, S.P.; Dias, D.S.; Dias, D.I.; Dias, D.L.; Lima, C.S.C.; Cardoso, T.M. Bowel obstruction in entero-colic fistula associated with magnet ingestion in children at the Amazonas countryside. AME Case Rep. 2019, 3, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Merchant, S.; Stringel, G.; Rosencrantz, R.A. Intragastric Fistula After Multiple Sphere Magnet Ingestion. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 15, e105–e106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Robinson, A.J.; Bingham, J.; Thompson, R.L. Magnet induced perforated appendicitis and ileo-caecal fistula formation. Ulst. Med. J. 2009, 78, 4–6. [Google Scholar]
  17. Khan, A.; Eldos, Y.; Alansari, K. Clinical Presentation and Outcome of Multiple Rare Earth Magnet Ingestions in Children of Qatar. A Single-Center Experience. Qatar Med. J. 2023, 2023, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shah, S.K.; Tieu, K.K.; Tsao, K. Intestinal Complications of Magnet Ingestion in Children from the Pediatric Surgery Perspective. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2009, 19, 328–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pryor, H.I., 2nd; Lange, P.A.; Bader, A.; Gilbert, J.; Newman, K. Multiple magnetic foreign body ingestion: A surgical problem. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2007, 205, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Honzumi, M.; Shigemori, C.; Ito, H.; Mohri, Y.; Urata, H.; Yamamoto, T. An intestinal fistula in a 3-year-old child caused by the ingestion of magnets: Report of a case. Surg. Today 1995, 25, 552–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kubota, Y.; Tokiwa, K.; Tanaka, S.; Iwai, N. Intestinal obstruction in an infant due to magnet ingestion. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1995, 5, 119–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, S.K.; Beck, N.S.; Kim, H.H. Mischievous magnets: Unexpected health hazard in children. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1996, 31, 1694–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chung, J.H.; Kim, J.S.; Song, Y.T. Small bowel complication caused by magnetic foreign body ingestion of children: Two case reports. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2003, 38, 1548–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Haraguchi, M.; Matsuo, S.; Tokail, H.; Azuma, T.; Yamaguchi, S.; Dateki, S.; Fukahori, K.; Kanematsu, T. Surgical intervention of the ingestion of multiple magnets by children. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2004, 38, 915–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nui, A.; Hirama, T.; Katsuramaki, T.; Maeda, T.; Meguro, M.; Nagayama, M.; Matsuno, T.; Mizumoto, T.; Hirata, K. An intestinal volvulus caused by multiple magnet ingestion: An unexpected risk in children. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2005, 40, e9–e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Liu, S.; de Blacam, C.; Lim, F.Y.; Mattei, P.; Mamula, P. Magnetic foreign body ingestions leading to duodenocolonic fistula. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2005, 41, 670–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ohno, Y.; Yoneda, A.; Enjoji, A.; Furui, J.; Kanematsu, T. Gastroduodenal fistula caused by ingested magnets. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2005, 61, 109–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vijaysadan, V.; Perez, M.; Kuo, D. Revisiting Swallowed Troubles: Intestinal Complications Caused by Two Magnets—A Case Report, Review and Proposed Revision to the Algorithm for the Management of Foreign Body Ingestion. J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 2006, 19, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Uchida, K.; Otake, K.; Iwata, T.; Watanabe, H.; Inoue, M.; Hatada, T.; Kusunoki, M. Ingestion of multiple magnets: Hazardous foreign bodies for children. Pediatr. Radiol. 2006, 36, 263–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Anselmi, E.H.; Gutiérrez San Román, C.; Barrios Fontoba, J.E.; Ayuso González, L.; Valdés Dieguez, E.; Lluna González, J.; Roca Molla, A.; García-Sala Viguer, C.; Gómez Montes, J.; Cortina Orts, H. Intestinal perforation caused by magnetic toys. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2007, 42, e13–e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oestreich, A.E. Danger of multiple magnets beyond the stomach in children. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2006, 98, 277–279. [Google Scholar]
  32. Adikibi, B.T.; Arnold, M.; van Niekerk, G.; Alexander, A.; Numanoglu, A.; Millar, A.J. Magnetic bead toy ingestion: Uses and disuses in children. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2013, 29, 741–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Waters, A.M.; Teitelbaum, D.H.; Thorne, V.; Bousvaros, A.; Noel, R.A.; Beierle, E.A. Surgical management and morbidity of pediatric magnet ingestions. J. Surg. Res. 2015, 199, 137–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pederiva, F.; Daniela, C.; Scarpa, M.G.; Guida, E.; Dragovic, D.; Martelossi, S. An Asymptomatic Multiple Magnet Ingestion with Transmesenteric Entero-Enteric Fistula. APSP J. Case Rep. 2014, 5, 16. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dutta, S.; Barzin, A. Multiple Magnet Ingestion as a Source of Severe Gastrointestinal Complications Requiring Surgical Intervention. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2008, 162, 123–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zachos, K.; Panagidis, A.; Georgiou, G.; Alexopoulos, V.; Sinopidis, X. Double Jejunoileal Fistula after Ingestion of Magnets. J. Indian Assoc. Pediatr. Surg. 2019, 24, 63–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Taher, H.; Azzam, A.; Khowailed, O.; Elseoudi, M.; Shaban, M.; Eltagy, G. A case report of an asymptomatic male child with multiple entero-enteric fistulae post multiple magnet ingestion. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2019, 58, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cherchi, V.; Adani, G.L.; Righi, E.; Baccarani, U.; Terrosu, G.; Vernaccini, N.; Bresadola, V.; Intini, S.; Risaliti, A. Ileocecal Fistula Caused by Multiple Foreign Magnetic Bodies Ingestion. Case Rep. Surg. 2018, 2018, 7291539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wooten, K.E.; Hartin, C.W., Jr.; Ozgediz, D.E. Laparoscopic Diagnosis of Magnetic Malrotation with Fistula and Volvulus. JSLS 2012, 16, 644–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, K.; Zhang, D.; Li, X.; Wang, Z.; Hou, G.; Jia, X.; Niu, H.; Qi, S.; Deng, Q.; Jiang, B.; et al. Multicenter investigation of pediatric gastrointestinal tract magnets ingestion in China. BMC Pediatr. 2020, 20, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tsai, J.; Shaul, D.B.; Sydorak, R.M.; Lau, S.T.; Akmal, Y.; Rodriguez, K. Ingestion of Magnetic Toys: Report of Serious Complications Requiring Surgical Intervention and a Proposed Management Algorithm. Perm. J. 2013, 17, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saeed, A.; Johal, N.S.; Aslam, A.; Brain, J.; Fitzgerald, R.J. Attraction problems following magnet ingestion. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2009, 91, W10–W12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kosut, J.S.; Johnson, S.M.; King, J.L.; Garnett, G.; Woo, R.K. Successful Treatment of Rare-Earth Magnet Ingestion via Minimally Invasive Techniques: A Case Series. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 2013, 23, 405–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pogorelić, Z.; Borić, M.; Markić, J.; Jukić, M.; Grandić, L. A Case of 2-Year-Old Child with Entero-Enteric Fistula Following Ingestion of 25 Magnets. Acta Med. 2016, 59, 140–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ali, A.; Alhindi, S. A Child with a Gastrocolic Fistula After Ingesting Magnets: An Unusual Complication. Cureus 2020, 12, e9336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Martínez, C.I.; Sánchez, D.P.; Herrera, N.; Ortiz, C.; Mosquera-Klinger, G. Ingestion of multiple magnets in pediatrics: Endoscopic or surgical emergency? Rev. Gastroenterol. Peru 2021, 41, 33–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gün, F.; Günendi, T.; Kılıç, B.; Celik, A. Multiple magnet ingestion resulting in small bowel perforation: A case report. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2013, 19, 177–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zheng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Yan, K.; Guo, H.; Li, M.; Lian, M.; Liu, Z. Retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with multiple rare-earth magnets ingestion: A single-center experience from China. BMC Pediatr. 2021, 21, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Phen, C.; Wilsey, A.; Swan, E.; Falconer, V.; Summers, L.; Wilsey, M. Non-Surgical Management of Gastroduodenal Fistula Caused by Ingested Neodymium Magnets. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Nutr. 2018, 21, 336–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ahmed, A.M.; Hassab, M.H.; Al-Hussaini, A.A.; Al-Tokhais, T.I. Magnetic toy ingestion leading to jejunocecal fistula in a child. Saudi Med. J. 2010, 31, 442–444. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kisku, S.; John, T.; Mutt, N. Perils in the playpen: Duodenojejunal fistula in a child following ingestion of two toy magnets. Trop. Gastroenterol. 2015, 36, 118–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kromhout, H.E.; Uijterschout, L.; Koopman-Keemink, Y.; Zijp, G.W.; Brus, F. Serious gastrointestinal complications due to accidental ingestion of magnetic toy parts. Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd. 2010, 154, A1917. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Hesketh, R.L.; Styles, K.; Rangasami, J. An acute abdomen secondary to ingestion of multiple magnets. BMJ Case Rep. 2014, 2014, bcr2014208083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Clarke, R.; Everett, T.; Watts, A.; Qureshi, T. The magnetism of surgery: Small bowel obstruction in an 8-year-old boy. BMJ Case Rep. 2010, 2010, bcr0120102667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cozzarelli, R.; Jama, S.; Gutiérrez, J. Abdominal pain secondary to ileocecal fistulae by ingestion of multiple magnetic bodies. Rev. Chil. Pediatr. 2017, 88, 428–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Gastrointestinal Injuries from Magnet Ingestion in Children—United States, 2003–2006. MMWR 2006, 55, 1296–1300. [Google Scholar]
  57. Chang, A.; Yeap, E.; Lee, E.; Bortagaray, J.; Giles, E.; Pacilli, M.; Nataraja, R.M. Decade of the dangers of multiple magnet ingestion in children: A retrospective review. J. Paediatr. Child Health 2022, 58, 873–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kumar, S.; Ghani, A. Complications related to unwitnessed magnet ingestion in paediatrics: Case series. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2024, 74, 175–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Quezada, H.; Levine, A.E.; Dellinger, M.; Rice-Townsend, S.; Zheng, H.B. Esophagogastric fistula: The consequence of high-powered magnets ingestion. JPGN Rep. 2023, 4, e385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Özcan, R.; Hakalmaz, A.E.; Uçar, A.K.; Beser, O.; Emre, S. Chronic jejuno-colonic fistula and intestinal malabsorption due to multiple magnet ingestions: A case report and systematic review. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2024, 30, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sodagum, L.; Truche, P.; Burjonrappa, S. “Signet Ring Sign” on Plain X-ray Indicates the Need for Surgical Intervention After Magnet Ingestion in Children. Cureus 2024, 16, e65943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Khan, A. Child with Closed Head Injury and Persistent Vomiting. Clin. Pract. Cases Emerg. Med. 2024, 8, 171–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alareefy, A.; Barnawi, E.; Alrashed, R.; Alamri, A.; Aleidan, A.M.; Alghofaily, M.; Alkhelaif, M.; Kanfar, S. Pediatric Magnet Ingestion with Delayed Presentation: Case Series from Tertiary Center in Saudi Arabia, Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics. Pediatr. Health Med. Ther. 2023, 14, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. George, A.T.; Motiwale, S. Magnets, children and the bowel: A dangerous attraction? World J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 18, 5324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Santos, L.P.; Coimbra, D.M.; Piedade, C.; Cunha, M.C.; Lopes, M.F. Ingestion of Magnetic Foreign Bodies: Two Clinical Cases, Two Approaches. Port. J. Pediatr. 2019, 50, 267–270. [Google Scholar]
  66. Nguyen, B.P.; Ahuja, N.; Barthel, E.R. Chronic small bowel fistulas, entero-mesenteric fistulas, and entrapped bezoar after ingestion of 2.5-mm magnetic beads. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2023, 89, 102542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kim, Y.; Hong, J.; Moon, S.B. Ingestion of multiple magnets: The count does matter. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2014, 2, 130–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Morulana, T.G.; Tshifularo, N.; Ngwenya, T.R.; Motloung, E. Small bowel fistula caused by ingested magnetic beads. J. Pediatr. Case Rep. 2021, 71, 101899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Azzam, A.; Sekaran, P.; Folaranmi, S.E. A very challenging scenario of 52 ingested toy magnets causing multiple entero-enteric fistulas in a 5 year-old child. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2023, 88, 102507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lawrence, K.M.; Iyer, M.; Baranwal, P.; Solomon, A.; Spigland, N.A. Magnet ingestion leading to intestinal fistulae, phytobezoar formation, and small bowel obstruction. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2019, 49, 101289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Teague, W.J.; Vaughan, E.M.; McHoney, M.; McCabe, A.J. Swallowed magnets and batteries: A dangerous but not unexpected attraction. BMJ Case Rep. 2013, 2013, bcr2013009073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Mervin, G.F.J.; Ali, A.F.; Dale, L.S.K.L.; Vidyadhar, M. Multiple magnet ingestion: Ring-like configuration with multiple intestinal fistulae. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2020, 60, 101472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Elsherbeny, M.S.; Allam, A.M.; El-Asmar, M. Foreign body ingestion in children: Unusual presentations and timely intervention. Ann. Pediatr. Surg. 2018, 14, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Afzal, M.; Almakki, A.A.; Abugrain, H.H.; Alsaeed, M.M.; Alzahir, B.S.; Sulis, N.A. Laparoscopic assisted extraction of multiple ingested magnets leading to entero-enteric fistulae—Case report of three patients. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2022, 84, 102357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Si, X.; Du, B.; Huang, L. Multiple Magnetic Foreign Bodies Causing Severe Digestive Tract Injuries in a Child. Case Rep. Gastroenterol. 2016, 10, 720–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Abbas, M.I.; Oliva-Hemker, M.; Choi, J.; Lustik, M.; Gilger, M.A.; Noel, R.A.; Schwarz, K.; Nylund, C.M. Magnet ingestions in children presenting to US emergency departments, 2002–2011. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2013, 57, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Shalaby, M.S. How dangerous a toy can be? The magnetic effect. Arch. Dis. Child. 2015, 100, 1049–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Kramer, R.E.; Lerner, D.G.; Lin, T.; Manfredi, M.; Shah, M.; Stephen, T.C.; Gibbons, T.E.; Pall, H.; Sahn, B.; McOmber, M.; et al. Management of ingested foreign bodies in children: A clinical report of the NASPGHAN Endoscopy Committee. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2015, 60, 562–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow chart illustrating the review process and article inclusion criteria.
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow chart illustrating the review process and article inclusion criteria.
Jcm 14 06235 g001
Figure 2. The number of fistulas per patient found in this systematic review.
Figure 2. The number of fistulas per patient found in this systematic review.
Jcm 14 06235 g002
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the patients included in the systematic review.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the patients included in the systematic review.
Study (Year)
[Reference]
No. of
Patients
with Fistula
No. of FistulaGender (M/F)Age (y) aInterventionHospital Stay aC-arm
Fluoroscopy
Mostafa et al. (2021) [10]823 (3 a)N/A5.81E + LP, 6LP, 1LS + LP102
Chavan et al. (2022) [11]331/22E1-
Seguier-Lipszyc et al. (2022) [12]111/-6LS + LP7-
Blevrakis et al. (2018) [6]111/-9LP14-
Mandhan et al. (2014) [13]22 (1 a)1/132LS + LP141
Muniz Dias et al. (2019) [14]111/-10LP4-
Merchant et al. (2017) [15]111/-2E41
Robinson et al. (2009) [16]111/-3LPN/A-
Khan et al. (2023) [17]46 (2 a)1/32.11E + LP, 1LS + LP,2LPN/A-
Shah et al. (2009) [18]1621 (1 a)10/63.91E, 1E + LP,14LP122
Pryor et al. (2007) [19]121/-12LP-1
Honzumi et al. (1995) [20]11-/13LP--
Kubota et al. (1995) [21]11-/11.5LP7-
Lee et al. (1996) [22]22 (1 a)-/22.5LP--
Chung et al. (2003) [23]22 (1 a)2/-1.5LP8-
Haraguchi et al. (2004) [24]111/-2LP8-
Nui et al. (2005) [25]111/-1LP21-
Liu et al. (2005) [26]111/-7E + LP--
Ohno et al. (2005) [27]11-/11E--
Vijaysadan et al. (2006) [28]121/-11LP--
Uchida et al. (2006) [29]13-/12LP28-
Anselmi et al. (2007) [30]111/-3LP--
Oestreich et al. (2006) [31]121/-4LP2-
Adikibi et al. (2013) [32]12-/13LS + LP6-
Waters et al. (2015) [33]37N/A25/12N/AN/AN/AN/A
Pederiva et al. (2014) [34]111/-4LS + LP5-
Dutta et al. (2008) [35]111/-4LS3-
Zachos et al. (2019) [36]121/-4LP5-
Taher et al. (2019) [37]171/-4LP6-
Cherchi et al. (2018) [38]11N/A11LP81
Wooten et al. (2012) [39]111/-16LS + LP8-
Wang et al. (2020) [40]24 (2 a)N/A3N/AN/AN/A
Miyamoto et al. (2019) [5]111/-3E + LP6-
Tsai et al. (2013) [41]11-/11E + LS + LPN/A-
Saeed et al. (2009) [42]111/-11LPN/A-
Kosut et al. (2013) [43]34 (1 a)3/-3.33E + LS43
Pogorelić et al. (2016) [44]11-/12LP5-
Ali et al. (2020) [45]11-/19E + LP51
Martinez et al. (2021) [46]210 (5 a)2/-6.52LLP7-
Gun et al. (2013) [47]11-/12LP7-
Zheng et al. (2021) [48]11N/AN/AN/AN/A-
Phen et al. (2018) [49]111/-1.5E3-
Ahmed et al. (2010) [50]11-/15E + LP6-
Kisku et al. (2015) [51]111/-2LP8-
Kromhout et al. (2010) [52]131/-3LP4-
Hesketh et al. (2014) [53]171/-10LP14-
Clarke et al. (2010) [54]1MULTIPLE1/-8LPN/A-
Cozzarelli et al. (2017) [55]111/-5LP7-
CDC (2006) [56]111/-4N/AN/A-
Chang et al. (2022) [57]11N/AN/AN/AN/A-
Kumar et al. (2024) [58]2MULTIPLE + 10/242LP3-
Quezada et al. (2023) [59]110/11.5E + LS + LP51
Özcan et al. (2024) [60]110/16E + LP8-
Sodagum et al. (2024) [61] 242/-4E + LP, LP81
Khan et al. (2024) [62]11N/A6LPN/A-
Alareefy et al. (2023) [63]111/-3LP3-
George A.T et al. (2012) [64]2MULTIPLE + 1N/A52LPN/A-
Santos et al. (2019) [65]111/-1.5LP61
Nguyen et al. (2023) [66]141/-2E + LS + LPN/A1
Kim et al. (2014) [67]11-/10.75E + LPN/A-
Morulana et al. (2021) [68]11-/15LS + LP51
Azzam et al. (2023) [69]181/-5LPN/A1
Lawrence et al. (2019) [70]16-/13E + LPN/A1
Teague et al. (2013) [71]111/-1.5E + LP6-
Mervin et al. (2020) [72]12-/14LP71
Elsherbeny et al. (2018) [73]11-/13LP>42N/A
Afzal et al. (2022) [74]35 (2 a)3/-33LS82
Si et al. (2016) [75]111/-2LP11-
Al-Saied et al. (2022) [4]2MULTIPLE + 22/-4.5LP, LS + LP62
Total13015876/383.3 23
a mean (SD). M: male; F: female; LP: laparotomy; LS: laparoscopy; E: endoscopy.
Table 2. Clinical characteristics of multiple magnet ingestion in children presenting with entero-enteric fistula.
Table 2. Clinical characteristics of multiple magnet ingestion in children presenting with entero-enteric fistula.
CharacteristicsCasesPercentage (%)
Gender
Female3829
Male7658
Clinical symptoms
Abdominal pain6046
Vomiting4333
Abdominal obstruction108
Diarrhea43
Constipation65
Acute abdomen43
Anuric22
Fever43
Melena11
None118
Clinical interventions
Endoscopic interventions64.6
Endoscopic interventions and abdominal surgery2015
Abdominal surgery10480
Table 3. Fistula location in children after multiple magnet ingestion.
Table 3. Fistula location in children after multiple magnet ingestion.
Location 1,2Number of FistulasPercentage (%)
Gastric fistulas2417
Gastro-Esophageal11
Gastro-Gastric21
Gastro-Duodenum32
Gastro-Jejunum1510
Gastro-Cecum11
Gastro –Transverse colon11
Gastro-Small bowel21
Duodenal fistulas107
Duodenum-Jejunum86
Duodenum-Ascending colon11
Duodenum-Transverse colon11
Enteric fistulas11053
Jejunum-Jejunum139
Jejunum-Ileum2719
Jejunum-Cecum11
Jejunum-Transverse colon32
Jejunum-Descending colon11
Jejunum-Sigmoid colon11
Jejunum-Colon11
Ileum-Ileum3222
Ileum-Cecum75
Ileum-Appendix11
Ileum-Ascending colon11
Ileum-Sigmoid colon11
Ileum-Colon53
Small Bowel-Small Bowel139
Small Bowel-Large Bowel32
1 Patients with multiple1 M1 Multiple fistulas are not included. 2 In 15 patients the location of fistula is not described.
Table 4. Postoperative period of children with entero-enteric fistula after multiple magnet ingestion.
Table 4. Postoperative period of children with entero-enteric fistula after multiple magnet ingestion.
Postoperative PeriodCasesPercentage (%)
Uneventful9472
Postoperative events 12217
   SSI4
   Abdominal wall dehiscence1
   Bowel obstruction2
   Gastroesophageal junction stricture1
   Anastomotic leak5
   Pneumonia1
   New endoscopy9
   New surgery6
   Death1
N/A1411
1 Seven patients showed with more than one postoperative event.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kelaidi, N.; Dimopoulou, K.; Dimopoulou, D.; Krikri, A.; Siouli, C.; Berikopoulou, M.M.; Zavras, N.; Dimopoulou, A. Entero-Enteric Fistula Following Multiple Magnet Ingestion in Children: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 6235. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14176235

AMA Style

Kelaidi N, Dimopoulou K, Dimopoulou D, Krikri A, Siouli C, Berikopoulou MM, Zavras N, Dimopoulou A. Entero-Enteric Fistula Following Multiple Magnet Ingestion in Children: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(17):6235. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14176235

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kelaidi, Natalia, Konstantina Dimopoulou, Dimitra Dimopoulou, Aggeliki Krikri, Christina Siouli, Maria M. Berikopoulou, Nikolaos Zavras, and Anastasia Dimopoulou. 2025. "Entero-Enteric Fistula Following Multiple Magnet Ingestion in Children: A Systematic Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 17: 6235. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14176235

APA Style

Kelaidi, N., Dimopoulou, K., Dimopoulou, D., Krikri, A., Siouli, C., Berikopoulou, M. M., Zavras, N., & Dimopoulou, A. (2025). Entero-Enteric Fistula Following Multiple Magnet Ingestion in Children: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(17), 6235. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14176235

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop