Cited by 0Veterinary Medicine and SurgeryForeign Body Medical CasesAmphibian and Reptile Biology

Application of flexible endoscopy for gastrointestinal foreign body removal in a leopard gecko (Eublepharis macularius)

Han, Jang-Hee, Ahn, Seung Yoon, Lee, Do Na, Yeon, Seong Chan·2025·The Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine

Abstract

A male captive-bred leopard gecko (Eublepharis macularius) presented with a history of inadvertent ingestion of a rubber tip from forceps during feeding. The foreign body was impalpable on physical examination, while radiographic evaluation confirmed its presence in the stomach. Considering the procedural risks associated with invasive surgical interventions, endoscopic retrieval under general anesthesia was pursued. An initial attempt using a 2.8 mm superfine flexible endoscope with 0.8 mm forceps was unsuccessful due to insufficient stability, which hindered effective navigation to the foreign body. In contrast, a second attempt using a larger 9.2 mm flexible endoscope with 2.3 mm forceps improved visualization and mechanical control, allowing for successful removal. Despite concerns about the potential adverse effects of introducing a relatively large-diameter instrument into the small-bodied patient, gastric mucosal inspection revealed no abnormalities, and the patient experienced an uneventful recovery. This case report describes the application of two flexible endoscope models for the retrieval of a gastrointestinal foreign body in a leopard gecko, an approach rarely documented in the literature. Given the limitation of a single case, larger case series and comparative studies are warranted to validate the safety, reproducibility, and clinical applicability of flexible endoscopy as a viable option. The establishment of evidence-based guidelines will facilitate safer and more tailored applications, ultimately advancing minimally invasive techniques in reptile medicine.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.56808/2985-1130.3897

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Han, J.-H., Ahn, S. Y., Lee, D. N., & Yeon, S. C.
Affiliations
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Research Institute for Veterinary Science, Seoul National University
  • Seoul National University (KR)
Venue
The Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine
Published
2025-12-28
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
1-6
ISSN
  • 0125-6491 (ISSN-L)
  • 2985-1130
OpenAlex
W7117477843
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Medicine and Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Foreign Body Medical Cases
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
Keywords
leopard gecko, Eublepharis macularius, gastrointestinal foreign bodies, foreign body removal, flexible endoscopy, endoscopic retrieval, reptile medicine, stomach foreign body, minimally invasive surgery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review