Did your kid get a pea stuck up his nose? Science to the rescue!

By Seriously Science | October 25, 2017 5:18 pm
Image: Flickr/Jason Rogers

Image: Flickr/Jason Rogers

Image: Flickr/Jason Rogers

Before you go near your kid with a pair of tweezers, read this! Here, researchers combed the literature for examples of successful removal of peas and other objects from kids’ noses using a technique called the “mother’s kiss”. And, as this research shows, it really works! We’ll leave it to the authors to describe this DIY approach:

The mother’s kiss was first described in 1965 by Vladimir Ctibor, a general practitioner from New Jersey. The mother, or other trusted adult, places her mouth over the child’s open mouth, forming a firm seal as if about to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. While occluding the unaffected nostril with a finger, the adult then blows until they feel the resistance caused by closure of the child’s glottis, at which point the adult gives a sharp exhalation to deliver a short puff of air into the child’s mouth. This puff of air passes through the nasopharynx, out through the unoccluded nostril and, if successful, results in the expulsion of the foreign body. The procedure is fully explained to the adult before starting, and the child is told that the parent will give him or her a “big kiss” so that minimal distress is caused to the child. The procedure can be repeated a number of times if not initially successful.

This sure sounds better than trying to suck out from the other end (meaning the nose).

Efficacy and safety of the “mother’s kiss” technique: a systematic review of case reports and case series.

“Background: Foreign bodies lodged in the nasal cavity are a common problem in children, and their removal can be challenging. The published studies relating to the “mother’s kiss” all take the form of case reports and case series. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of this technique.
Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, AMED Complementary and Allied Medicine and the British Nursing Index for relevant articles. We restricted the results to only those studies involving humans. In addition, we checked the references of relevant studies to identify further possibly relevant studies. We also checked current controlled trials registers and the World Health Organization search portal. Our primary outcome measures were the successful extraction of the foreign object from the nasal cavity and any reported adverse effects. We assessed the included studies for factors that might predict the chance of success of the technique. We assessed the validity of each study using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale.

Results: Eight relevant published articles met our inclusion criteria. The overall success rate for all of the case series was 59.9% (91/152). No adverse effects were reported.

Interpretation: Evidence from case reports and case series suggests that the mother’s kiss technique is a useful and safe first-line option for the removal of foreign bodies from the nasal cavities of children.”

Related content:
Being Barbie: the size of one’s own body determines the perceived size of the world.
What’s worse than a leech in your ear? NOTHING!
We were wrong: there IS something worse than a leech in your ear.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: diy medicine, smell you later
ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    Who gets sued if bacteria are pneumatically injected into the kid’s middle ear, followed by infection? If the kid’s eardrums are burst? If you are in Canada and get 20 years for incest? (Except for PEI. The kid goes into protective custody, but she’s still the kid’s sister.)

    Shear off the far end of a wooden chopstick. Add a sparse drop of Super Glue or 5-minute epoxy. Thread it up to touch the object, let it set, pull out the object. Somewhat more educational for the child would be a head brace and a Dremel. If it’s a good kid, cocaine to vasoconstrict and shrink the tissues. If not, Afrin.

    • OWilson

      Maybe the patient, should give just a good blow down the restricted nostril, while manually closing the other, which would bring physics and the powerful science of hydraulics to the solution, in a less invasive way?

      At the same time it would avoid PC charges 40 years later of inappropriate touching!

    • http://stephan-zielinski.com/ Stephan Zielinski

      Missed the part about “No adverse effects were reported”, eh? And in the place of the results of actual research, you’re suggesting an alternate approach involving a stick and putting adhesive into the airway.

      Well, come back in 2018; your ideas will find a welcome home in the next iteration of TrumpCare.

      • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

        I did Materials and Processes for human implantables. “No adverse effects were reported” giggle

        Not an adhesive, a glue – merely a surface wetting. There are qualified adhesives re license plate tags. Solvent-based either is a disqualification.

        Entirely disassemble the social intent Nanny State at all levels – no insurance, no safety equipment mandates’ no admission for being unqualified but hopeful. Pay for your own appetites, take personal responsibility for your own actions, personally purchase against disaster. No supplier will charge what its consumers will not personally pay – not for long (e.g., EpiPen). Paradise is price tightly coupled to cost. I stand with Trump.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Seriously, Science?

Seriously, Science?, formerly known as NCBI ROFL, is the brainchild of two prone-to-distraction biologists. We highlight the funniest, oddest, and just plain craziest research from the PubMed research database and beyond. Because nobody said serious science couldn't be silly!
Follow us on Twitter: @srslyscience.
Send us paper suggestions: srslyscience[at]gmail.com.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+