medigraphic.com
ISSN 2594-1518 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0099 (Print)

2009, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Cir Gen 2009; 31 (2)

Foreign bodies in the rectum

Camacho AJF, García GF, Reyes EA

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 97-104
PDF size: 97.18 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To present the experience attained at the General Hospital of Tijuana, BC, Mexico, in the diagnosis, treatment, and evolution of patients with foreign bodies in the rectum.
Design: Case series.
Setting: General Hospital of Tijuana, city of Tijuana, state of Baja California, Mexico.
Statistical analysis: Central tendency measures and percentages as summary measure for qualitative variables.
Patients and methods: Analysis of the clinical records of 33 patients admitted to the General Hospital of Tijuana, from August 2003 to October 2007. Analyzed variables were: age, gender, type of foreign body, cause of foreign body introduction, consumption and type of drugs and/or alcohol, most frequent clinical manifestations, results of X-ray studies, height at which the foreign body was localized, extraction site, type of analgesia used for the extraction, extraction method, injuries produced, and evolution of the patients with the provided treatment.
Results. We analyzed the clinical records of 33 patients; most were men (93.9%), the most frequent introduced foreign body were flasks (42.4%), followed by wooden sticks (12.1%). The most frequent etiology was insertion due to self-inflicted anal eroticism (54.5 %), accompanied by alcohol and/or drug abuse (33.3%) and localization at less than 10 cm from the anal margin (69.9%). Frequent manifestations are: foreign body sensation, abdominal distension, transanal pain, abdominal pain, and constipation. Extraction was performed by transanal approach (75.6%) and by exploratory laparotomy (24.2%). Evolution was satisfactory in 29 patients; four patients developed peritonitis and in three patients the peritonitis evolved and led to death.
Conclusions: The presence of foreign bodies in the rectum is a clinical entity of relatively simple diagnosis if the adequate information is gathered through a complete clinical history. A careful physical examination and paraclinical studies are important elements to discern between those patients with the foreign body above 10 cm from the anal margin and those patients coursing with a complication, generally, intestinal perforation, because the latter is associated to a 10% mortality.


REFERENCES

  1. Huang WC, Jiang JK, Wang HS, Yang SH, Chen WS, Lin TC, et al. Retained rectal foreign bodies. J Chin Med Assoc 2003; 66: 607-12.

  2. Clarke DL, Buccimazza I, Anderson FA, Thomson SR. Colorectal foreign bodies. Colorectal Dis 2005; 7: 98-103.

  3. Rodriguez-Hermosa JI, Codina-Cazador A, Ruiz B, Sirvent JM, Roig J, Farrés R. Management of foreign bodies in the rectum. Colorectal Dis 2007; 9: 543-8.

  4. Pickhardt PJ. Differential diagnosis of polypoid lesions seen at CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Radiographics 2004: 24: 1535-59.

  5. Pandey BB, Dang TC, Healy JF. Embolic stroke complicating Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis circumstantially linked to rectal trauma from foreign body: a first case report. BMC Infect Dis 2005; 5: 42.

  6. Cohen JS, Sackier JM. Management of colorectal foreign bodies. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1996; 41: 312-5.

  7. Ernst AA, Green E, Ferguson MT, Weiss SJ, Green WM. The utility of anoscopy and colposcopy in the evaluation of male sexual assault victims. Ann Emerg Med 2000; 36: 432-7.

  8. Redding MD. Foreign bodies in the rectum simulating anorectal disease. Calif Med 1949; 71: 215.

  9. Fry RD. Anorectal trauma and foreign bodies. Surg Clin North Am 1994; 74: 1491-1505.

  10. Yu NC, Raman SS, Patel M, Barbaric Z. Fistulas of the genitorurinary tract: a radiologic review. Radiographics 2004; 24: 1331-52.

  11. Hemandas AK, Muller GW, Ahmed I. Rectal impaction with epoxy resin: a case report. J Gastrointest Surg 2005; 9: 747-9.

  12. Nicollier-Fahrni A, Vader JP. Froehlich F, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B. Development of appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy: comparison between a standarized expert panel and an evidence-based medicine approach. Int J Qual Health Care 2003; 15: 15-22.

  13. Hunter TB, Taljanovic MS. Foreign bodies. Radiographics 2003; 23: 731-57.

  14. Lee KF, Wong J, Lai PB. Radiolucent foreign body visible on plain radiography. Can J Surg 2008; 51: E87-E88.

  15. Mackinnon RP. Removing rectal bodies: is the ventouse gender specific? Med J Aust 1998; 169: 670-1.

  16. Peet TN. Removal of impacted rectal foreign body with obstetric forceps. Br Med J 1976; 1: 500-1.

  17. Lowicki EM. Accidental introduction of giant foreign body into the rectum: case report. Ann Surg 1966; 163: 395-8.

  18. Koornstra JJ, Weersma RK. Management of rectal foreign bodies: description of a new technique and clinical practice guidelines. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 4403-6.

  19. Ooi BS, Ho YH, Eu KW, Nyam D, Leong A, Seow-Choen F. Management of anorectal foreign bodies: a cause of obscure anal pain. Aust N Z J Surg 1998; 68: 852-5.

  20. Rispoli G, Esposito C, Monachese TD, Armellino M. Removal of a foreign body from the distal colon using a combined laparoscopic and endoanal approach; a report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43: 1632-4.

  21. Berghoff KR, Franklin ME Jr. Laparoscopic-assisted rectal foreign body removal: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 1975-7.

  22. Johnson SO, Hartranft TH. Nonsurgical removal of a rectal foreign body using a vacuum extractor. Report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum1996; 39: 935-7.

  23. Barone JE, Yee J, Nealon TF Jr. Management of foreign bodies and trauma of the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1983; 156: 453-7.

  24. Corman ML. Colon and rectal surgery. 4th edition. Philadelphia: Ed. Lippincott-Raven, 1998: 363-9.

  25. Schofield PF. Foreign bodies in the rectum: a review. J R Soc Med 1980; 73: 510-13.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com