The Use of Sonography in the Identification, Localization, and Removal of Soft Tissue Foreign Bodies

Gibbs, Tim S.

doi:10.1177/8756479305283985

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Otherwise, imaging techniques are required to identify the FB and establish its exact location prior to surgical removal attempt. To identify and localize FBs other than by traditional radiography, which will usually display radiopaque FBs, echotomography has now proved irreplaceable, with high sensibility and specificity [1][2][3][4][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound-guided removal of foreign bodies: personal experience

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foreign bodies (FBs) retained in the soft tissues are a common reason for medical consultation, and usually consist of wooden or metal splinters or glass shards. Failure to remove foreign bodies is likely to give rise to acute or late complications, such as allergies, inflammation or infection, that may be severe. The surgical removal of an FB is invasive, costly and technically challenging. The procedure may fail in some cases and carries the risk of complications. Our study describes a technique for the ultrasound-guided removal of an FB, devised from our experience, and demonstrates its advantages over the standard surgical procedure. Sixty-two patients (43 males and 19 females aged from 9 to 65 years, median age 31 years) presented at our institution between October 2005 and June 2008 with suspected foreign bodies retained in the soft tissues of various body districts. Radiographic and/or ultrasound diagnosis was established by a radiologist expert in musculoskeletal sonography. The same radiologist helped by a nurse subsequently undertook the ultrasound-guided removal in the outpatient's clinic according to the technique described in the paper. ATL 5000 and PHILIPS iu22 ultrasound systems were used with high-frequency linear-array probes, sterile material, local anaesthetic (lidocaine 2%), scapels and surgical forceps. Antibiotic prophylaxis with amoxicillin and clavulanic acid were prescribed to all patients for 7 days after the procedure. Ninety-five FBs (39 glass, 35 metal, 17 vegetable, 2 plastic, 2 stone) were successfully removed under ultrasound guidance in all patients and the procedure took between 15 and 30 min. No complications arose either during or after the procedure. Seventy-five skin incisions were made and the wounds closed with Steri-Strips in 73/75 cases, whereas skin sutures were used in 2/75 cases. No complications arose either during or after the procedure. Ultrasound-guided removal of an FB retained in the soft tissues is a good alternative to surgery as is its relatively straightforward, inexpensive, repeatable and carries a low risk of complications. In addition, failure to remove an FB does not preclude traditional surgical removal. The advantages of this real-time procedure and the use of small instruments minimize bleeding time and avoid injury to surrounding structures. Patient compliance is enhanced by the fact that the procedure has little or no aesthetic impact. These encouraging results suggest ultrasound-guided removal as a first-choice procedure for the extraction of foreign bodies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound-guided removal of foreign bodies: personal experience

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound to detect foreign bodies in soft tissue have been reported as 43% to 100% and 70% to 100%, respectively 5,11,12 . However, the effectiveness of ultrasound can be altered by several factors, such as operator experience, the size and depth of the foreign body, its proximity to osseous structures, and air within the wound 11 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the effectiveness of ultrasound can be altered by several factors, such as operator experience, the size and depth of the foreign body, its proximity to osseous structures, and air within the wound 11 . The effectiveness of ultrasound to detect foreign bodies is often measured in studies by its ability to detect wood [4][5][6]13,14 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not as Straight(forward) as an Arrow: Ultrasound Use to Detect a Carbon-Fiber Foreign Body

Robertson

Galloway

Crist

et al. 2016

JBJS Case Connector

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Case: A fifteen-year-old boy sustained an archery injury when a carbon-fiber arrow shaft embedded in the volar aspect of his left forearm. The shaft was removed, but at a follow-up visit he still felt the sensation of a retained foreign body in the tissue. Although radiographs were negative, ultrasound examination found three foreign bodies of various lengths still located in the soft tissue. Further surgery removed the objects without difficulty.Conclusion: Ultrasound examination can be a valuable diagnostic tool when radiographs yield inconclusive results after penetrating wounds due to radiolucent foreign bodies.

show abstract

“…Although a number of ultrasound procedures for superficial loose body removal have been described in the literature [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ], we found few references describing successful removal of a loose body from the thigh [ 10 ] and no cases where removal was successful from deep soft tissue in the absence of the original track site.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%