Cargando…

Diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: Case report & literature review

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of abdominal complications due to fish bone ingestion is particularly difficult as the presentation may mimic common abdominal pathologies. PRESENTATION OF CASE: 65 year-old male presented with a two day history of right iliac fossa pain. He denied any nausea and vomiting...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beecher, Suzanne M., O’Leary, Donal Peter, McLaughlin, Ray
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4529669/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26188981
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.06.034
_version_ 1782384814260748288
author Beecher, Suzanne M.
O’Leary, Donal Peter
McLaughlin, Ray
author_facet Beecher, Suzanne M.
O’Leary, Donal Peter
McLaughlin, Ray
author_sort Beecher, Suzanne M.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of abdominal complications due to fish bone ingestion is particularly difficult as the presentation may mimic common abdominal pathologies. PRESENTATION OF CASE: 65 year-old male presented with a two day history of right iliac fossa pain. He denied any nausea and vomiting. He had no systemic systems including fever, change in bowel habit. He had tenderness and guarding localized to the right iliac fossa. He had raised inflammatory markers. A CT scan of the abdomen was performed which showed fat standing in proximity to the terminal ileum, with the appearance of Crohn’s disease. The clinical picture did not match the imaging and so the patient underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy. Findings included an acutely inflamed terminal ileum. A foreign body was identified piercing through at the small bowel wall at the terminal ileum. The foreign body was removed and revealed a fish bone. Intracorporeal sutures were inserted at the site of the microperforation. The patient was discharged well two days post operatively. DISCUSSION: Fish bone perforation is not a common cause of gastrointestinal perforation. Unfortunately the history is often non-specific and these people can be misdiagnosed with acute appendicitis & other pathologies. CT scans can be useful to aid diagnostics. It is not however fully sensitive in detecting complications arising from fishbone ingestion. CONCLUSION: Management therefore, should be based taking into account primarily the clinical picture & may necessitate diagnostic laparoscopy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4529669
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45296692015-08-11 Diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: Case report & literature review Beecher, Suzanne M. O’Leary, Donal Peter McLaughlin, Ray Int J Surg Case Rep Case Report INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of abdominal complications due to fish bone ingestion is particularly difficult as the presentation may mimic common abdominal pathologies. PRESENTATION OF CASE: 65 year-old male presented with a two day history of right iliac fossa pain. He denied any nausea and vomiting. He had no systemic systems including fever, change in bowel habit. He had tenderness and guarding localized to the right iliac fossa. He had raised inflammatory markers. A CT scan of the abdomen was performed which showed fat standing in proximity to the terminal ileum, with the appearance of Crohn’s disease. The clinical picture did not match the imaging and so the patient underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy. Findings included an acutely inflamed terminal ileum. A foreign body was identified piercing through at the small bowel wall at the terminal ileum. The foreign body was removed and revealed a fish bone. Intracorporeal sutures were inserted at the site of the microperforation. The patient was discharged well two days post operatively. DISCUSSION: Fish bone perforation is not a common cause of gastrointestinal perforation. Unfortunately the history is often non-specific and these people can be misdiagnosed with acute appendicitis & other pathologies. CT scans can be useful to aid diagnostics. It is not however fully sensitive in detecting complications arising from fishbone ingestion. CONCLUSION: Management therefore, should be based taking into account primarily the clinical picture & may necessitate diagnostic laparoscopy. Elsevier 2015-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4529669/ /pubmed/26188981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.06.034 Text en © 2015 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Case Report
Beecher, Suzanne M.
O’Leary, Donal Peter
McLaughlin, Ray
Diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: Case report & literature review
title Diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: Case report & literature review
title_full Diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: Case report & literature review
title_fullStr Diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: Case report & literature review
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: Case report & literature review
title_short Diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: Case report & literature review
title_sort diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: case report & literature review
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4529669/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26188981
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.06.034
work_keys_str_mv AT beechersuzannem diagnosticdilemmasduetofishboneingestioncasereportliteraturereview
AT olearydonalpeter diagnosticdilemmasduetofishboneingestioncasereportliteraturereview
AT mclaughlinray diagnosticdilemmasduetofishboneingestioncasereportliteraturereview