Osman Akdağ1, Gökçe Yıldıran1, Mehtap Karameşe1. 1. Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Selçuk University School of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Foreign-body and penetration injuries of the hand are common emergencies. Metallic foreign bodies are common among all foreign masses; however, the examination of huge bodies differs from that of other metallic masses. The purpose of this study was to clarify an algorithm for the management of the huge metallic masses via our therapeutic approaches for metal-penetrating injuries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven patients who had a huge, metallic object-penetration injury to their upper extremity were included in our study. Patients were classified according to the age, injury type, character of metallic body, injury zone, diagnostic methods, anesthesia type, and treatment received, and an algorithm to approach the management of foreign metallic bodies was clarified. RESULTS: The causes of injury were knitting hook, iron fence, mixer, and metal nail. Plain radiography was performed for all patients. Prophylactic tetanus was administered and urgent exploration in the operation room under tourniquet followed by foreign-body extraction through cutting and not pulling were conducted. No residue was retained. CONCLUSION: Many patients referred to emergency services with foreign bodies. For diagnosis, the patient's history and a minimum of two-way radiograms are crucial. For treatment, we recommend surgical exploration under general anesthesia and tourniquet and extraction of the metallic body by cutting and not pulling without retaining any residual mass in the operation room.
OBJECTIVE: Foreign-body and penetration injuries of the hand are common emergencies. Metallic foreign bodies are common among all foreign masses; however, the examination of huge bodies differs from that of other metallic masses. The purpose of this study was to clarify an algorithm for the management of the huge metallic masses via our therapeutic approaches for metal-penetrating injuries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven patients who had a huge, metallic object-penetration injury to their upper extremity were included in our study. Patients were classified according to the age, injury type, character of metallic body, injury zone, diagnostic methods, anesthesia type, and treatment received, and an algorithm to approach the management of foreign metallic bodies was clarified. RESULTS: The causes of injury were knitting hook, iron fence, mixer, and metal nail. Plain radiography was performed for all patients. Prophylactic tetanus was administered and urgent exploration in the operation room under tourniquet followed by foreign-body extraction through cutting and not pulling were conducted. No residue was retained. CONCLUSION: Many patients referred to emergency services with foreign bodies. For diagnosis, the patient's history and a minimum of two-way radiograms are crucial. For treatment, we recommend surgical exploration under general anesthesia and tourniquet and extraction of the metallic body by cutting and not pulling without retaining any residual mass in the operation room.