Intracranial Iatrogenic Foreign Bodies: Features of Neuroimaging

The timely diagnosis of postoperative consequences through identification of intracranial foreign bodies enables prevention of complications and improvement in quality of life. The paper considers two clinical cases after surgical interventions to remove subdural and intracerebral hematomas of different ages. Computed tomography (CT) was performed on a 64-slice Somatom Perspective apparatus (Siemens, Germany) applying a reformative slice thickness of less than 0.6 mm. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was carried out using a Magnetom Essenza 1.5 T system (Siemens, Germany). When wording the CT and MRT findings, it was suggested that each of the patients had an intracranial foreign body in the presence of postoperative changes. The CT and MRI findings were fully correlated with intraoperative data on the location, number, shape, and size of foreign bodies. The neuroimaging techniques are highly informative in identifying intracranial foreign bodies and are especially important for chronically critically ill patients because of the lack of productive contact with them due to speech problems and cognitive impairment. They assist in making a correct diagnosis and playing a leading role in neurosurgical practice, allowing the detection of an abnormality, the optimal planning of patient management tactics, and the prevention of possible complications.

1. Townsend CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox K (Eds) Sabiston textbook of surgery: the biological basis of modern surgical practice. 16th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 2001.

2. Рязанцев А.А, Гончарова Т.П. Диагностика ятрогенных инородных тел в раннем и позднем послеоперационном периоде. Ультразвуковая и функциональная диагностика. 2013; 1: 15–26. [Ryazantsev AA, Goncharova TP. Iatrogenic foreign bodies diagnosis in early and late postoperative period. Ultrasound and Functional Diagnostics. 2013; 1: 15–26 (in Russ.).]

3. Nawaz S, Said M, Takrouri M. Iatrogenic brain foreign body. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2006; 18(4): 779–84.

4. Javadrashid R, Fouladi DF, Golamian M, et al. Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(4): 20140229. http://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140229.

5. Огнерубов Н.А. Непреднамеренное интраоперационное оставление инородных тел: юридические аспекты и профилактика. Вестник Тамбовского университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2015; 149(9): 206–10. [Ognerubov NA. Unpremeditated intraoperative leaving of foreign bodies: legal aspects and preventive measures. Tambov University Review: Series Humanities. 2015; 149(9): 206–10 (in Russ.).]

6. Cheon JW, Kim EY, Park JB, et al. A case of gossypiboma masquerading as a gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Clin Endosc. 2011; 44(1): 51–4. http://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2011.44.1.51.

7. Nishio Y, Hayashi N, Hamada H, et al. A case of delayed brain abscess due to a retained intracranial wooden foreign body: a case report and review of the last 20 years. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2004; 146(8): 847–50. http://doi.org/.1007/s00701-004-0283-7.

8. Nakayama T, Shimazaki K, Ono J, et al. Intracranial foreign body granuloma caused by fine cotton fibers: a case report. No Shinkei Geka. 1994; 22(11): 1081–4 (in Japanese).