BACKGROUND: Suspicion of a foreign body (FB) is one of the most common reasons for performing an upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in children. In our opinion, the development of a new algorithm and the choice of optimal equipment will ensure timely diagnosis and success of endoscopic FB removal from the GI tract in children. AIMS: to develop an algorithm and select the optimal equipment to ensure timely diagnosis and safety of endoscopic FB removal from the GI tract in children. METHODS: a retrospective three-center study of children’s medical histories with suspected GI FB’s from 2017 to 2020. The analysis included: the patient's age, presence, localization, type of FB, visibility on X-ray, the time elapsed before its removal, the type and effectiveness of the endoscopic instrument (EI), duration, success and complications of the procedure. RESULTS: 1,173 children were examined (boys n=676, 57.6%; girls n=497, 42.4%) average age 3.5 years (±3.3, 0-17 years). The diagnosis of GI FB was confirmed in 1008 (86.1%) patients, and endoscopic examination was performed in 756 (75%) cases. The majority of FB were radiopaque (n=844, 83.7%) and had inorganic nature (n=941, 93.4%). According to the pathological effect: inert FB (n=637, 63.2%), chemical (disk batteries, n=166, 16.5%), mechanical (pointed, food bolus, bezaors, hydrogel balls, n=143, 14%), physical (magnets, n=62, 6.2%) effects on the child's body. According to localization, in 273 (27%) children, FB was located in the esophagus, 471(46.8%) in the stomach, 23 (2.2%) in the duodenum, 250 (24%) migrated from the upper GI tract. FB’s were endoscopically removed in 751 (99.3%) cases out of 756 conducted intraluminal examinations. The most in-demand EI turned out to be a gripping device of the "net" type (n=283, 37.6%), rat tooth forceps and a loop (both n=278, 37%), to a lesser extent biopsy forceps (n=86, 11.5%), a basket (n=50, 6.5%), forceps “alligator" (n=43, 5.7%) and in 10 (1.3%) free-lying FB’s were gently pushed down by an endoscope from the esophagus to the stomach. Net, “rat tooth” forceps, loop and basket turned out to be the most versatile EI’s for removing four types of FB’s, with the best average time of the procedure. There were no complications related to the FB’s endoscopic removal. Adverse events related to FB – 52 (5.1%) cases: 51 chemical burns of the esophagus(n=17) and stomach (n=34) with disc batteries, 1 perforation of the stomach due to prolonged exposure to magnets. CONCLUSIONS: the proposed modification of the algorithm for FB removal from the GI tract, the optimal choice of endoscopic equipment and manipulation accessories depending on the age of the child, localization, type and harmful effects of the swallowed object are the key to its successful and effective extraction in children.