AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightAlong with our overall results, we present a case with missed penetrating sponge FB injury in detail.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Background/aim: This study aimed to retrospectively analyse patients with foreign body (FB) injuries in our hospital and to present a patient with missed penetrating sponge FB injury. Materials and methods: This study lasted 12 years (2008–2020) and reviewed all patients with FB injuries who were admitted to the emergency department (ED) of our hospital. Along with our overall results, we present a case with missed penetrating sponge FB injury in detail. Results: A total of 377 patients were included in the study (age: 28.3 ± 18.3 years, m/f: 229/148). The foot (n = 148, 39.3%) and the hand (n = 143, 37.9%) were the most frequently injured body parts. Regarding FB types, sewing needles (n = 140, 37.1%), metal pieces (n = 91, 24.1%), and glass (n = 80, 21.2%) were the most frequently observed objects. Most of the patients were injured at home, often by needles or glass. The injury-admission mean time was 7.38 ± 2.5 days. FBs were frequently removed in the ED (n = 176, 46.7%). Plain radiography is the first line in identifying FBs. Soft tissue infection was the most common complication. MRIs were much useful than USGs in detecting the missed penetrating sponge injury of the single patient in the study. Conclusion: For diagnosis of FBs, besides recording the patient’s history, obtaining a two-sided radiogram is of great importance. For nonradiolucent or deeply located FBs, further clinical or radiological investigation must be considered to avoid complications. Although most of the FBs can be removed in the ED, patients may require hospitalisation and operation for FB removal, depending upon FB location and age.Key words: Foreign body, sponge, missed foreign body, complication, injury