Retrospective evaluation of 377 patients with penetrating foreign body injuries: a university hospital experience (a present case of missed sponge foreign body injury)

• Published in: Turkish journal of medical sciences Vol. 51; no. 2; pp. 570 - 582
• Main Authors: Öztürk, Anıl Murat, Aljasim, Omar, Şanlıdağ, Gamze, Taşbakan, Meltem
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Turkey The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey 30-04-2021
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Emergency Service, Hospital; Foreign Bodies - complications; Foreign Bodies - diagnostic imaging; Hospitals, University; Humans; Middle Aged; Radiography; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Sponges; Wounds, Penetrating; Young Adult; sponge; complication; Foreign body; injury; missed foreign body
• ISSN: 1300-0144; 1303-6165
• DOI: 10.3906/sag-2006-34

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.
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.
Approximately 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.
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.