Home About us Articles Multimedia Search Instructions Login 
5 years IF: 1.036 (® Thomson Reuters)
IF 2016: 1.064 (® Thomson Reuters)
Total Cites: 7140
Follow Us
Follow Us
  • Users Online: 735
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 130  |  Issue : 14  |  Page : 1753-1754

Ultrasound-guided Removal of Retained Soft Tissue Foreign Body with Late Presentation

1 Department of Ultrasound, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
2 Department of Radiology and Medicine, University Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Canada
3 Department of Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China

Date of Submission16-Jan-2017
Date of Web Publication7-Jul-2017

Correspondence Address:
Li-Gang Cui
Department of Ultrasound, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.209910

Rights and Permissions

Keywords: Foreign Bodies; Minimally Invasive; Removal; Ultrasonography

How to cite this article:
Fu Y, Cui LG, Romagnoli C, Li ZQ, Lei YT. Ultrasound-guided Removal of Retained Soft Tissue Foreign Body with Late Presentation. Chin Med J 2017;130:1753-4

How to cite this URL:
Fu Y, Cui LG, Romagnoli C, Li ZQ, Lei YT. Ultrasound-guided Removal of Retained Soft Tissue Foreign Body with Late Presentation. Chin Med J [serial online] 2017 [cited 2018 Jun 25];130:1753-4. Available from: http://www.cmj.org/text.asp?2017/130/14/1753/209910

Foreign body (FB) removal represents a large part of the work in surgical practice.[1] However, FB removal may often be a surgical challenge because of the nonpalpated and close anatomical relationship of the FB to vital structures or due to patients with cicatricial diathesis.[2] Retained FBs may result in infection, chronic pain, structural injury, granuloma, and psychological distress, especially with late presentation (more than 1 week from the time of injury).[1],[3]

Between December 2011 and February 2016, 12 consecutive patients with retained FBs were examined at our department. They were 8 men and 4 women, aged 10–68 years (mean age, 42.7 years). Indications for ultrasound-guided FB removal were as follows: FB was retained in the soft tissue for various reasons; the FB was visible on ultrasound with an apparent safe-guided access;[2] the FB was located in the subcutaneous soft tissue a distance of <30 mm from the skin; and the patient did not want the FB to be surgically removed or patient was with cicatricial diathesis.

The FBs included one cactus needle, one jujube thorn, a metal fragment, and one shard of glass, and the remaining eight were all wooden splinters. Small FBs were retained in the various areas of the body, including four fingers, two feet, two calves, one palm, one forearm, one back, and one ankle. The pretherapeutic duration was from 2 weeks to 1.5 years. Two patients underwent surgical exploration without the use of ultrasound examination to detect the FB before, and the outcome turned to be a failure. The remaining ten patients presented to our department complaining of a persistent FB sensation without previous treatment. The distance between the FBs and the skin was 8.8 mm (range: 3–23 mm). The largest diameter of FB was 11.9 mm (range: 4–25 mm).

All FB removal procedures were performed under real-time ultrasound guidance by one radiologist with >10 years of experience in interventional radiology. The technique described below was used for all patients in the outpatient clinic. The area around the wound was sterilized and the probe was sheathed or sterilized. After careful ultrasound examination, the size of the FB and its exact location, depth, three-dimensional orientation, and relationship to other structures were recorded, and the skin was marked accordingly. A small incision (usually 2–3 mm) was made at the point of nearest long axis of the FB (skin marking). Through the incision, ophthalmologic forceps arrived at the tip of the FB in the same plane (long-axis view). Then, the probe turned to the short-axis view to show the relationship between the forceps and FB [Figure 1]. The arms of the forceps were then opened to grasp the FB and remove it. All the procedures were performed freehand by the same radiologist.
Figure 1: A 10-year-old boy fell into a ditch 2 weeks before presenting at our hospital. Initially after the wooden splinter was removed, the wound healed. However, the patient still felt discomfort and received an ultrasound examination. (a) Transverse sonogram showing a foreign body (arrows) with posterior acoustic shadowing in the subcutaneous soft tissue layer. (b) After confirmation, the foreign body was removed under ultrasound guidance. The surgical forceps were inserted through the incision (crocodile forceps) and reached the foreign body in-plane.

Click here to view

In 11/12 patients, the FBs were successfully removed under ultrasound guidance, and the procedure took from 15 to 30 min (mean, 21.6 min). There was only one failure to remove the FB, which was in a male with a wood thorn that had penetrated into the thenar muscles. The distance between the FB and the skin was 23 mm, which was deeper than those successful cases (mean: 7.5 mm, range: 3–16 mm). The patient was then referred to a surgeon and surgical exploration was successful. All patients were discharged on the same day of the procedure. The FB removal procedure was well tolerated by all patients. No procedural-related complications occurred. After a mean follow-up of 22.4 months (9–39 months), no patients had discomfort at the site where the FB was removed.

In conclusion, the ultrasound-guided soft tissue FB removal is a safe and minimally invasive technique. It is worthwhile to promote the use of ultrasound-guided FB removal, even with late presentation.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

This work was supported by a grant from the Hospital Clinical Key Project of Peking University Third Hospital (No. 75502-02).

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Levine MR, Gorman SM, Young CF, Courtney DM. Clinical characteristics and management of wound foreign bodies in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:918-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2007.11.026.  Back to cited text no. 1
Bradley M. Image-guided soft-tissue foreign body extraction – Success and pitfalls. Clin Radiol 2012;67:531-4. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.10.029.  Back to cited text no. 2
Lee JM, Kim YJ. Foreign body granulomas after the use of dermal fillers: Pathophysiology, clinical appearance, histologic features, and treatment. Arch Plast Surg 2015;42:232-9. doi: 10.5999/aps.2015.42.2.232.  Back to cited text no. 3


  [Figure 1]


Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

  In this article
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded76    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal