Direct withdrawal of a retained foreign body bisecting the thoracic spinal canal in a neurologically intact pediatric patient: illustrative case.

direct withdrawal penetrating spinal cord injury penetrating trauma retained foreign body spinal stab wound

Journal

Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons
ISSN: 2694-1902
Titre abrégé: J Neurosurg Case Lessons
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918227275606676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 Jun 2023
Historique:
received: 02 02 2023
accepted: 08 03 2023
medline: 24 6 2023
pubmed: 24 6 2023
entrez: 24 6 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Nonmissile penetrating spinal cord injury (NMPSCI) with a retained foreign body (RFB) is rare and usually results in permanent neurological deficits. In extremely rare cases, patients can present without significant neurological deficits despite an RFB that traverses the spinal canal. Given the rarity of these cases, a consensus has not yet been reached on optimal management. In a patient with an RFB and a neurologically normal clinical examination, the risk of open surgical exploration may outweigh the benefit and direct withdrawal may be a better option. A 10-year-old female suffered an NMPSCI to the thoracic spine with an RFB that bisected the spinal canal but remained neurologically intact. Direct withdrawal of the RFB was chosen instead of open surgical exploration, leading to an excellent clinical outcome. The literature was reviewed to find other examples of thoracic NMPSCI with RFB and neurologically normal examinations. Management strategies were compared. For NMPSCI with RFB and without significant neurological deficits, direct withdrawal is a viable and possibly the best treatment option. The use of fast-acting anesthesia without intubation minimizes patient manipulation, speeds up recovery, and allows early assessment of neurological status after removal.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Nonmissile penetrating spinal cord injury (NMPSCI) with a retained foreign body (RFB) is rare and usually results in permanent neurological deficits. In extremely rare cases, patients can present without significant neurological deficits despite an RFB that traverses the spinal canal. Given the rarity of these cases, a consensus has not yet been reached on optimal management. In a patient with an RFB and a neurologically normal clinical examination, the risk of open surgical exploration may outweigh the benefit and direct withdrawal may be a better option.
OBSERVATIONS METHODS
A 10-year-old female suffered an NMPSCI to the thoracic spine with an RFB that bisected the spinal canal but remained neurologically intact. Direct withdrawal of the RFB was chosen instead of open surgical exploration, leading to an excellent clinical outcome. The literature was reviewed to find other examples of thoracic NMPSCI with RFB and neurologically normal examinations. Management strategies were compared.
LESSONS CONCLUSIONS
For NMPSCI with RFB and without significant neurological deficits, direct withdrawal is a viable and possibly the best treatment option. The use of fast-acting anesthesia without intubation minimizes patient manipulation, speeds up recovery, and allows early assessment of neurological status after removal.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37354389
doi: 10.3171/CASE2363
pii: CASE2363
pmc: PMC10550528
doi:
pii:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2018 Nov 13;4:102
pubmed: 30455986
J Neurotrauma. 2016 Aug 1;33(15):1416-21
pubmed: 26825180
Injury. 2015 Sep;46(9):1726-33
pubmed: 26049661
Surg Neurol Int. 2020 Nov 25;11:406
pubmed: 33365169
Orthopedics. 2012 May;35(5):e770-3
pubmed: 22588426
J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 May;4(5):400-8
pubmed: 16703908
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019 Sep;184:105405
pubmed: 31302378
Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2013 Winter;19(1):1-8
pubmed: 23678280
Lancet. 1962 Jul 28;2(7248):169-72
pubmed: 14465744
J Emerg Med. 2000 Feb;18(2):209-13
pubmed: 10699524
Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2016 Jul 07;2:16009
pubmed: 28053753
Surg Neurol Int. 2016 Dec 26;7(Suppl 42):S1096-S1098
pubmed: 28144493
S Afr Med J. 1977 Jun 25;51(26):961-4
pubmed: 888030
J Clin Neurosci. 2019 Sep;67:239-243
pubmed: 31213379

Auteurs

David R Peters (DR)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Departments of3Neurosurgery, and.

Trent VanHorn (T)

Departments of3Neurosurgery, and.

Brandon Karimian (B)

2Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Benjamin Pruden (B)

4Anesthesiology, Atrium Health Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina; and.

Scott D Wait (SD)

2Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Departments of3Neurosurgery, and.

Roy T Daniel (RT)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
5Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Constantin Tuleasca (C)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
5Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH