Cargando…
Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience
BACKGROUND: Patients with a rectal foreign body (RFB) are still a rare entity in general surgery departments but with an increasing incidence over the last years. This case is sometimes difficult to treat, and due to a lack of standardized treatment options, the aim of the study was to present our c...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
De Gruyter
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6754005/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31579741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iss-2017-0021 |
_version_ | 1783453003485806592 |
---|---|
author | Kokemohr, Pia Haeder, Lars Frömling, Fabian Joachim Landwehr, Peter Jähne, Joachim |
author_facet | Kokemohr, Pia Haeder, Lars Frömling, Fabian Joachim Landwehr, Peter Jähne, Joachim |
author_sort | Kokemohr, Pia |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Patients with a rectal foreign body (RFB) are still a rare entity in general surgery departments but with an increasing incidence over the last years. This case is sometimes difficult to treat, and due to a lack of standardized treatment options, the aim of the study was to present our clinical experiences with the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to RFBs and a review of the currently available literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from the patient’s records of 20 patients who were treated due to an RFB between 2006 and 2016. Patient’s demographics, circumstances of insertion, inserted objects, clinical presentation, laboratory and imaging results, as well as surgical treatment and duration of hospital stay were analyzed. Additionally, a review of the literature was performed with the search items “rectal foreign body” and “surgical therapy”. Because many publications were just case reports, we did not perform a meta-analysis or a systematic review. RESULTS: Twenty-two cases in 20 patients (80% male) presented to the emergency room. The mean age was 38.5±13.7 years. In 68.2% of the cases, the cause of RFB was due to sexual preferences. The following objects were inserted: six dildos, three vibrators, two bottles, one glass, one deodorant, one apple, one fever thermometer, multiple glass fragments and razor blades in one patient and six unknown objects. For 18 RFBs, manual peranal removal without anesthesia was possible in the emergency room, but two patients required intravenous analgesia. Two patients were transferred to the operating room and the foreign body was removed via the anus under general anesthesia. Open surgery with a laparotomy was necessary for two complicated cases. One patient was in need of surgery due to a vacuum generated by the RFB, whereas the second patient suffered from a sigmoid perforation. In all cases, there was no morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: In most cases, the removal of an RFB can be performed peranally in the emergency room without further complications, therefore representing the therapy of choice for RFB. Only in cases with perforation, acute abdomen, or failed peranal approaches, surgery is indicated to remove the foreign body. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6754005 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | De Gruyter |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67540052019-10-02 Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience Kokemohr, Pia Haeder, Lars Frömling, Fabian Joachim Landwehr, Peter Jähne, Joachim Innov Surg Sci Original Articles BACKGROUND: Patients with a rectal foreign body (RFB) are still a rare entity in general surgery departments but with an increasing incidence over the last years. This case is sometimes difficult to treat, and due to a lack of standardized treatment options, the aim of the study was to present our clinical experiences with the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to RFBs and a review of the currently available literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from the patient’s records of 20 patients who were treated due to an RFB between 2006 and 2016. Patient’s demographics, circumstances of insertion, inserted objects, clinical presentation, laboratory and imaging results, as well as surgical treatment and duration of hospital stay were analyzed. Additionally, a review of the literature was performed with the search items “rectal foreign body” and “surgical therapy”. Because many publications were just case reports, we did not perform a meta-analysis or a systematic review. RESULTS: Twenty-two cases in 20 patients (80% male) presented to the emergency room. The mean age was 38.5±13.7 years. In 68.2% of the cases, the cause of RFB was due to sexual preferences. The following objects were inserted: six dildos, three vibrators, two bottles, one glass, one deodorant, one apple, one fever thermometer, multiple glass fragments and razor blades in one patient and six unknown objects. For 18 RFBs, manual peranal removal without anesthesia was possible in the emergency room, but two patients required intravenous analgesia. Two patients were transferred to the operating room and the foreign body was removed via the anus under general anesthesia. Open surgery with a laparotomy was necessary for two complicated cases. One patient was in need of surgery due to a vacuum generated by the RFB, whereas the second patient suffered from a sigmoid perforation. In all cases, there was no morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: In most cases, the removal of an RFB can be performed peranally in the emergency room without further complications, therefore representing the therapy of choice for RFB. Only in cases with perforation, acute abdomen, or failed peranal approaches, surgery is indicated to remove the foreign body. De Gruyter 2017-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6754005/ /pubmed/31579741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iss-2017-0021 Text en ©2017 Kokemohr P. et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Kokemohr, Pia Haeder, Lars Frömling, Fabian Joachim Landwehr, Peter Jähne, Joachim Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience |
title | Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience |
title_full | Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience |
title_fullStr | Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience |
title_full_unstemmed | Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience |
title_short | Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience |
title_sort | surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6754005/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31579741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iss-2017-0021 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kokemohrpia surgicalmanagementofrectalforeignbodiesa10yearsinglecenterexperience AT haederlars surgicalmanagementofrectalforeignbodiesa10yearsinglecenterexperience AT fromlingfabianjoachim surgicalmanagementofrectalforeignbodiesa10yearsinglecenterexperience AT landwehrpeter surgicalmanagementofrectalforeignbodiesa10yearsinglecenterexperience AT jahnejoachim surgicalmanagementofrectalforeignbodiesa10yearsinglecenterexperience |