Soft tissue foreign body: Difference between revisions
(→Dispo) |
No edit summary |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Indications for Removal== | ==Background== | ||
==Clinical Features== | |||
==Differential Diagnosis== | |||
==Evaluation== | |||
*2013 study showed imaging study sensitivity and specificity for various types of foreign bodies (fresh wood, dry wood, glass, precelain, plastic)<ref>Pattamapaspong N, Srisuwan T, Sivasomboon C, Nasuto M, Suwannahoy P, Settakorn J, Kraisarin J, Guglielmi G. Accuracy of radiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing foreign bodies in the foot.</ref> | |||
**XR Sn 29%, Sp 100% | |||
**CT Sn 63%, Sp 98% | |||
**MRI Sn 58%, Sp 100% | |||
*In other studies, US detected and localized foreign body better than CT<ref>Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarci M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010 Feb;39(2):72-8.</ref><ref>Karabay N. US findings in traumatic wrist and hand injuries. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013 Jul-Aug;19(4):320-5.</ref> | |||
==Management== | |||
*antibiotics indicated for organic matter | |||
*do not extend hand wounds in ED | |||
===Indications for Removal=== | |||
*Potential for inflammation or infection | *Potential for inflammation or infection | ||
**Vegetative or chemically reactive material | **Vegetative or chemically reactive material | ||
Line 21: | Line 38: | ||
**Intravascular location | **Intravascular location | ||
**Migration toward important structures | **Migration toward important structures | ||
==Dispoition== | ==Dispoition== | ||
*Ortho 1-2 days if not retrievable | *Ortho 1-2 days if not retrievable | ||
== | ==See Also== | ||
* | *[[Foreign body]] | ||
==References== | |||
<references/> | |||
[[Category:Trauma]] | [[Category:Trauma]] |
Revision as of 03:58, 22 November 2016
Background
Clinical Features
Differential Diagnosis
Evaluation
- 2013 study showed imaging study sensitivity and specificity for various types of foreign bodies (fresh wood, dry wood, glass, precelain, plastic)[1]
- XR Sn 29%, Sp 100%
- CT Sn 63%, Sp 98%
- MRI Sn 58%, Sp 100%
- In other studies, US detected and localized foreign body better than CT[2][3]
Management
- antibiotics indicated for organic matter
- do not extend hand wounds in ED
Indications for Removal
- Potential for inflammation or infection
- Vegetative or chemically reactive material
- Heavy bacterial contamination (e.g. teeth, soil)
- Proximity to fractured bone
- Established infection
- Allergic reaction
- Toxicity
- Spines with venom
- Heavy metals
- Functional and cosmetic problems
- Impingement on nerves, vessels, tendons
- Restriction of joint mobility
- Proximity to tendons
- Impairment of gait
- Persistent pain
- Cosmetic deformity (e.g., tattooing)
- Psychological distress
- Potential for later injury
- Intra-articular location
- Intravascular location
- Migration toward important structures
Dispoition
- Ortho 1-2 days if not retrievable
See Also
References
- ↑ Pattamapaspong N, Srisuwan T, Sivasomboon C, Nasuto M, Suwannahoy P, Settakorn J, Kraisarin J, Guglielmi G. Accuracy of radiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing foreign bodies in the foot.
- ↑ Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarci M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010 Feb;39(2):72-8.
- ↑ Karabay N. US findings in traumatic wrist and hand injuries. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013 Jul-Aug;19(4):320-5.