Case report and brief review of literature on sonographic detection of accidentally implanted wooden foreign body causing persistent sinus
© Borgohain et al.; licensee Springer. 2012
Received: 1 March 2012
Accepted: 16 May 2012
Published: 16 May 2012
Despite advances in imaging techniques, the detection of vegetative foreign bodies in soft tissues remains a difficult and sometimes even a challenging task. Clinical evaluation of such patient may present several months or even years after the initial injury and clinician may fail to elicit an antecedent skin puncture. X-ray examination will miss radiolucent foreign bodies. A 15-year-old boy presented with a draining non-healing sinus at the lateral aspect of his right thigh for 9 months. Musculoskeletal ultrasonography was ordered after ruling out chronic osteomyelitis to detect possible lesions around the thigh. High-frequency linear ultrasonic probe readily detected an elongated foreign body within the vastus lateralis muscle. A long piece of wood was confirmed at surgery. Non-healing sinus with normal finding in radiograph following old trauma should raise the suspicion of implanted radiolucent foreign body/bodies. The role of diagnostic ultrasound as a valuable screening tool for the detection of foreign body is briefly reviewed.
Despite advances in imaging techniques, the detection of retained vegetative foreign bodies remains a difficult and challenging task and may require the use of imaging modalities for better localization. Patients may present for evaluation several months or even years after the initial injury, and consequently, clinical evaluation may fail to elicit a history of antecedent skin puncture. When a history of penetrating trauma is suggested, its severity is difficult to estimate clinically . Radiographs may fail to reveal the retained radiolucent foreign bodies leading to missing the diagnosis entirely .
After an informed consent, the patient was taken for exploration of the wound under spinal anesthesia under a pneumatic tourniquet. The incision was made over the old scar incorporating the sinus tract and explored in a systematic manner. The vastus lateralis was approached after incising the deep fascia. Finger dissection of the muscle revealed the foreign body which was identified as a long piece of wood measuring about 1.5 × 7.5 cm (Figure 4).
Discussion and brief review of literature
In various cadaveric studies , a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 99% have been demonstrated for sonography as a diagnostic modality in fresh cases. Theoretically, a combination of ultrasound and X-ray films should allow for diagnosis and localization of virtually all foreign bodies. Sonography can be used effectively to locate wooden foreign bodies as small as 2.5 mm in length . Given that many foreign bodies are radiographically undetectable, the accuracy and availability of sonography make it an excellent modality for evaluation of radiolucent foreign bodies [3, 4]. The imaging appearance of wooden foreign bodies is variable; however, imaging can be quite specific , and when taken in the appropriate clinical setting, the imaging should reliably suggest the diagnosis. Wood is highly echogenic and reveals pronounced acoustic shadowing on sonography . Sonography is frequently underused but proved most useful for the evaluation of retained wooden foreign bodies . Radiographs failed to reveal the retained radiolucent foreign bodies in all (12 out of 12) patients in a published report . While most of the metal and glass foreign bodies can be detected by plain radiography, organic substances such as wood and vegetative materials are radiolucent, and unfortunately, these radiolucent foreign bodies are usually more prone to cause an inflammatory reaction and infection . The detection can be even more difficult in cases of penetrating injuries  with small innocuous skin wounds. The detection of wood is especially important because it may serve as an unrecognized nidus for infection. Wood, with its porous consistency and organic nature, is an excellent medium for microorganisms, and the retained wooden foreign matter may result in cellulitis, abscess, or fistula formation . The wooden foreign matter may also result in synovitis if a joint is violated or in osteomyelitis if adjacent osseous structures become involved. Radiographs have been reported to reveal a wooden foreign body in only 15% of patients and 38% of retained foreign bodies in the soft tissues were overlooked at initial examination . Xeroradiography has been reported as slightly more sensitive than conventional radiography for the detection of retained wood; however, xeroradiographs show negative results in 80% of patients and are not available in most radiology departments . Sonography is indeed a reliable investigation for the detection of foreign bodies in soft tissue . Sonography has been well studied in the evaluation of retained foreign bodies and has been proved to be both sensitive and specific [4, 8, 9].
Given the markedly different acoustic impedance of wood and soft tissues, retained wooden foreign bodies are easily identified by radiologists, with the leading edge of the echogenic wood resulting in marked acoustic shadowing . Retained foreign bodies in the soft tissue of the extremities that were initially overlooked and discovered later are unfortunately common . Localization of embedded foreign body may prove to be very difficult. Exploration under regional or general anesthesia with application of a tourniquet (whenever possible) has been recommended to provide a better operative view .
Incomplete removal is a possibility, and exposure should be adequate to avoid it. Sonography can be a useful therapeutic adjuvant in the management of wooden splinter or other foreign bodies in the extremities ; ultrasound can confirm completeness of removal of the foreign body after surgery as well . Notably, the identification of wooden foreign bodies may be exceedingly difficult on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), especially when foreign bodies are small and there is no associated abscess or fluid collection . When compared with MRI, computed tomography (CT) scan has the advantage of being less expensive, more readily available, and faster to perform. However, sonography has been proved to be effective only for superficial foreign bodies. Foreign bodies and their accompanying shadowing or reverberation may not be well visualized if they are located adjacent to the bone or deep to subcutaneous gas . X-ray examinations will miss radiolucent foreign bodies. Sonography allows detection of a variety of soft-tissue foreign bodies, including wood splinters, glass, metal, and plastic, along with evaluation of their associated soft-tissue complications .
Ultrasound examination can readily demonstrate such ‘radiolucent’ foreign bodies. Such implanted foreign body can lead to infection. Ultrasound examination can readily demonstrate such radiolucent foreign bodies, but sonography is not commonly ordered by orthopedists and clinicians alike in traumatic conditions of the limbs unlike X-ray examination. Therefore, this participatory, real-time, cheap, and easily available diagnostic modality is often ignored as a screening tool by clinicians, and instead, there is tendency to order a high-end imaging modality like MRI or high-radiation-based modality like CT scan. This case implies that a non-healing sinus with normal bone finding in radiograph following old trauma should raise the suspicion of implanted foreign body/bodies which can be detected at bedside by office sonography instead .
Non-healing sinus with normal bone finding in radiograph following old trauma should raise the suspicion of implanted foreign body/bodies which can be detected by sonography. Ultrasound examination can readily demonstrate radiolucent foreign bodies, but sonography is not commonly ordered by orthopedists and clinicians in traumatic conditions of the limbs as a screening tool for evaluation unlike X-ray examination. Though it is a cheap, easily available, and real-time diagnostic modality, sonography is often ignored as a screening tool in limb injuries. Instead, there is tendency among clinicians to order a high-end imaging modality like MRI or high-radiation-based modality like CT scan.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
Dr. BB is an assistant professor and in charge and Dr. NB and Dr. PJG are former senior residents in the Department of Orthopaedics & Trauma in NEIGRIHMS. Dr. AH is an assistant professor in the Department of Radiology and Imaging in NEIGRIHMS.
- Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW, Kransdorf MJ: Wooden foreign bodies imaging appearance. AJR 2002,178(3):557–562.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bray PW, Mahoney JL, Campbell JP: Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in the diagnosis of foreign bodies in the hand. J Hand Surg Am 1995,20(4):661–6. 10.1016/S0363-5023(05)80287-4PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jacobson JA, Powell A, Craig JG, Bouffard JA, van Holsbeeck MT: Wooden foreign bodies in soft tissue: detection at US. Radiology 1998,206(1):45–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hung YT, Hung LK, Griffith JF, Wong CH, Ho PC: Ultrasound for the detection of vegetative foreign body in hand–a case report. Hand Surg 2004,9(1):83–7. 10.1142/S021881040400198XPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ochiai H, Yamakawa Y, Fukushima T, Yamada H: Neuroimaging of a wooden foreign body retained for 5 months in the temporalis muscle following penetrating trauma with a chopstick. Neurol Med Chir 1998, 39: 744–747.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Anderson MA, Newmeyer WL, Kilgore ES: Diagnosis and treatment of retained foreign bodies in the hand. Am J Surg 1982, 144: 63–67. 10.1016/0002-9610(82)90603-1PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ho VT, McGuckin JF, Smergel EM: Intraorbital wooden foreign body: CT and MR appearance. AJNR 1996, 17: 134–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mizel MS, Steinmetz ND, Trepman E: Detection of wooden foreign bodies in muscle tissue: experimental comparison of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Foot Ankle Int 1994, 15: 437–443.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Horton LK, Jacobson JA, Powell A, Fessell DP, Hayes CW: Sonography and radiography of soft-tissue foreign bodies. AJR 2001,176(5):1155–1159.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fornage BD, Schernberg FL: Sonographic diagnosis of foreign bodies of the distal extremities. AJR 1986, 147: 567–569.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee CK, Sara Ahmad T, Abdullah BJJ: Splinter removal with the aid of ultrasonography: a case report. Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal 2008,2(2):47–49. 10.5704/MOJ.0811.012View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.