Cargando…

The unexpected epidural: a case report

BACKGROUND: We report the peculiar case of a patient with a retained large epidural catheter fragment, incidentally found 12 years after its placement. Our primary aim is to emphasize how the breakage and retention of even exceptionally large portions of this device can go undetected. The patient ca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pinciroli, Riccardo, Fumagalli, Roberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26041091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0062-4
_version_ 1782374791349534720
author Pinciroli, Riccardo
Fumagalli, Roberto
author_facet Pinciroli, Riccardo
Fumagalli, Roberto
author_sort Pinciroli, Riccardo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We report the peculiar case of a patient with a retained large epidural catheter fragment, incidentally found 12 years after its placement. Our primary aim is to emphasize how the breakage and retention of even exceptionally large portions of this device can go undetected. The patient can be completely asymptomatic and, with no clue that such a foreign body exists, the presentation of its potential complications can be subtle and misleading. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the incidental discovery of such a large fragment so many years after its placement. No consensus exists about how to handle this complication, therefore our report adds to the amount of available evidence. CASE PRESENTATION: A 53-year-old caucasian female with a history of diverticulitis requiring multiple hospitalizations underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. The early postoperative period was complicated by peritonitis, demanding an urgent “second-look” exploratory laparoscopy. Nine days post-operatively, a filiform metallic object in the upper-quadrant was noted on x-ray. No epidural had been placed for either one of her recent surgeries. Given the patient’s history, the object was initially thought to be a retained surgical sponge. Previous studies, however, showed that the same image was already present preoperatively. Upon further questioning, the patient reported an epidural being placed twelve years before, at the time of her pregnancy. No mention of breakage had been made to her at that time, nor a retained foreign body was ever reported afterwards, despite her many imaging exams. She also never experienced any symptoms. A 15 cm fragment of a wire-reinforced catheter was surgically retrieved under local anesthesia and fluoroscopic guidance. CONCLUSION: Breakage of the epidural catheter with fragment retention is a known complication of this device, possibly leading to devastating sequelae. The fragment can go undetected for years. In this case our finding was incidental and the patient was asymptomatic. However, in the event a neurologic complication arose, the identification of the unknowingly retained epidural as the causative agent could have been difficult and delayed, with potential harm to the patient.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4455980
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44559802015-06-05 The unexpected epidural: a case report Pinciroli, Riccardo Fumagalli, Roberto BMC Anesthesiol Case Report BACKGROUND: We report the peculiar case of a patient with a retained large epidural catheter fragment, incidentally found 12 years after its placement. Our primary aim is to emphasize how the breakage and retention of even exceptionally large portions of this device can go undetected. The patient can be completely asymptomatic and, with no clue that such a foreign body exists, the presentation of its potential complications can be subtle and misleading. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the incidental discovery of such a large fragment so many years after its placement. No consensus exists about how to handle this complication, therefore our report adds to the amount of available evidence. CASE PRESENTATION: A 53-year-old caucasian female with a history of diverticulitis requiring multiple hospitalizations underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. The early postoperative period was complicated by peritonitis, demanding an urgent “second-look” exploratory laparoscopy. Nine days post-operatively, a filiform metallic object in the upper-quadrant was noted on x-ray. No epidural had been placed for either one of her recent surgeries. Given the patient’s history, the object was initially thought to be a retained surgical sponge. Previous studies, however, showed that the same image was already present preoperatively. Upon further questioning, the patient reported an epidural being placed twelve years before, at the time of her pregnancy. No mention of breakage had been made to her at that time, nor a retained foreign body was ever reported afterwards, despite her many imaging exams. She also never experienced any symptoms. A 15 cm fragment of a wire-reinforced catheter was surgically retrieved under local anesthesia and fluoroscopic guidance. CONCLUSION: Breakage of the epidural catheter with fragment retention is a known complication of this device, possibly leading to devastating sequelae. The fragment can go undetected for years. In this case our finding was incidental and the patient was asymptomatic. However, in the event a neurologic complication arose, the identification of the unknowingly retained epidural as the causative agent could have been difficult and delayed, with potential harm to the patient. BioMed Central 2015-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4455980/ /pubmed/26041091 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0062-4 Text en © Pinciroli and Fumagalli. 2015 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Case Report
Pinciroli, Riccardo
Fumagalli, Roberto
The unexpected epidural: a case report
title The unexpected epidural: a case report
title_full The unexpected epidural: a case report
title_fullStr The unexpected epidural: a case report
title_full_unstemmed The unexpected epidural: a case report
title_short The unexpected epidural: a case report
title_sort unexpected epidural: a case report
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26041091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0062-4
work_keys_str_mv AT pinciroliriccardo theunexpectedepiduralacasereport
AT fumagalliroberto theunexpectedepiduralacasereport
AT pinciroliriccardo unexpectedepiduralacasereport
AT fumagalliroberto unexpectedepiduralacasereport