Search

Introduction: Rectal foreign bodies (FB), as a cause of surgical emergency are on the rise. The management is usually uneventful but delays in presentation are associated with complications and morbidity. Psychiatric illnesses account for a vast majority of FB insertion cases which is usually overlooked., Case Presentation: 56 year male with alleged history of insertion of a discarded bottle of insecticide into his rectum 6 weeks ago. He presented late, in sepsis due to lack of family support and social taboo, in sepsis. The foreign body was extracted by trans-anal approach with no evidence of bowel injury on laparoscopy. Psychiatry consultation revealed alcohol-induced psychosis which was managed., Clinical Discussion: Insertion of foreign bodies voluntarily for sexual gratification is common, apart from some accidental cases. There is delay in seeking medical attention, complicated by many social factors. Multiple approaches to management are in practice. Psychiatric component is linked in part to the primary act, delayed presentation and recurrence., Conclusion: Foreign body insertion into anatomical orifices is on the rise. Management can be complicated by body of interest, patient and social factors. Psychiatric history, evaluation and corresponding management is a must for all cases. Social awareness can help reduce incidence and the delay in seeking medical care., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There was no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Although becoming more common, a foreign body in the rectum remains a challenging presentation. This is due to both a lack of clarity of treatment algorithms and established clinical guideline pathways and trying to avoid invasive methods to improve patient outcomes. We present a case where a foreign body was inserted into the rectum as a form of self-harm requiring emergency theater in the form of a sigmoid colectomy., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Patel et al.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background Bedside management and outcomes of rectal foreign bodies remain challenging due to the presentation and complexity of the inserted objects. Injuries, such as perforation of the colon and rectum, are among the most commonly reported complications. However, prior studies are unclear regarding the setting in which the complication rates may be minimized. This study aimed to assess whether there was a statistically significant difference among the various extraction methods with regard to complications in the emergency department and operating room. Materials and methods This was a retrospective study of all cases of rectal foreign bodies that were removed in the emergency department at a large county hospital between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2020. Patients included in this study were adults who were evaluated and treated in the emergency department. Results A total of 78 patients were included in the final analysis. More than half (51.3%, n=40) of the patients were successfully treated in the emergency department. Compared with the emergency department, patients in the operating room were more likely to undergo exploratory laparotomy and colectomy (0% vs. 31.6%, p<0.0001), undergo general anesthesia (84.2% vs. 0%, p<0.0001), have higher complication rates (21% vs. 0%, p=0.0021), and have a longer hospital length of stay (median=1 vs. 0, p<0.0001). Conclusion This study revealed a >50% success rate of rectal foreign body removal in the emergency department without any reported complications. To improve the success rate of bedside retrieval and decrease complications, physicians need to be vigilant, communicative, and compassionate about their evaluations and clinical methodology., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2023, Frendt et al.)

Though common, the extraction of rectal foreign bodies is still a great challenge for surgeons. The foreign body's position can usually be verified by plain abdominal radiography. Given the potential of sexually transmitted disease, screening for HIV, hepatitis, and syphilis is warranted prior to intervention. The utilization and selection of surgical instruments need to be flexible, ingenious, and innovative.

Removal of rectosigmoid retained foreign bodies (RFB) may require laparoscopy and often laparotomy. Proctoscopic extraction from the distal sigmoid colon and proximal rectum can be technically difficult. Using a transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) approach, RFBs can be safely removed, avoiding an abdominal operation with associated morbidity. Patients without clinical findings concerning for acute colonic perforation undergo bedside digital rectal examination and proctoscopic attempt at removal of RFB. If unsuccessful, patients undergo rectal examination under anesthesia with proctoscopy and attempted RFB removal. If the RFB cannot be easily removed, a TAMIS port is inserted into the anal canal and pneumorectum is established. A laparoscopic camera and instruments are then used to facilitate removal of the RFB. To date, TAMIS was successful in all 10 patients with RFB requiring an operation. All patients tolerated the procedure well and were discharged to home from the postoperative recovery room. Unfortunately, none of the patients presented for follow-up visits, but there were no known complications. This technique can be considered prior to laparotomy for patients with RFBs after failed digital examination with proctoscopy.

Purpose: Rectal foreign bodies can pose a unique problem to the acute care surgeon or emergency room physician. Little data exists on the patient with such a diagnosis, outside of case reports, and institutional cohorts. This study describes demographics and outcomes for this patient population., Methods: An analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database (2015 to 2018) was performed, capturing patients with a postoperative diagnosis of foreign body of the anus or rectum. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who underwent removal under anesthesia (EUA) and those who required surgical removal. Baseline demographics and outcomes were compared and described., Results: A total of 109 patients were included in the study. The average age was 49.29 ± 14.63 years. The majority of the population was male (92.66%) and white (78.90%). Demographics and preoperative variables were clinically similar between patients receiving an EUA or an operation. Length of stay was longer in patients receiving an operation (4.84 ± 3.27 versus 1.39 ± 3.20 days in those receiving an EUA, p < 0.0001). About 97.24% of the population discharged to their home residence., Conclusions: This study describes a population of patients admitted for retained foreign body of the rectum, in a population larger than that can be described in a typical institutional review. EUA can be a safe approach to foreign body removal, with laparotomy carrying the typical risks of surgery. This population requires further study to identify the mechanisms and risk factors for alimentary tract injury to reduce operative interventions and improve outcomes.

Purpose: Retained foreign rectal objects may require surgical removal. To estimate the magnitude of this problem, we report the incidence and treatment of retained rectal objects at a large emergency hospital, and calculate incidence rates at the national level in Sweden., Methods: All local patient records during 2009-2017 with the diagnosis foreign body in anus and rectum (ICD-10 T185) were accessed and analyzed retrospectively. All Swedish in- and outpatient visits during 2005-2016 with the code T185 were accessed from the National Patient Register., Results: We show an increasing incidence in rectal foreign bodies in Swedish national data. The increase was most noticeable in men, and in our local register there was an overrepresentation of sex toys leading to laparotomy and stoma., Conclusions: To mitigate surgical cost and comorbidity, policies to decrease the risk of retained sex toys could be considered.

Background: Rectal foreign bodies are commonly encountered in the emergency department (ED). Three techniques are well described in literature, including using a Foley catheter, "scooping" the object out, or grasping the object directly with ring forceps. We present a novel extraction method for an inflatable foreign body., Case Report: A 27-year-old man presented to the ED 13 h after inserting a rubber inflatable child's ball into his rectum. After well-described extraction techniques failed to remove the ball, an 18-gauge needle at the end of a syringe was inserted into the rectum to puncture the ball and partially deflate it. The ball was then able to be removed easily. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Although recent published literature has pushed for early consultation of surgical specialties in lieu of emergency physician bedside extraction, this case report highlights the ability of emergency physicians to modify known extraction techniques to safely remove rectal foreign bodies in well-appearing patients at the bedside using appropriate analgesia, positioning, and readily available equipment., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A 39-year-old man died of multi-organ failure complicating mixed drug toxicity that included methadone, oxazepam, oxycodone and nitrazepam. His past medical history involved alcohol and poly-substance abuse with chronic self-harm and suicidal ideation. There had been multiple hospital admissions for drug overdoses. At autopsy the most unusual finding was of two packages of 10 tablets each, wrapped in thin plastic film within the rectum. The insertion of drugs into body orifices and cavities has been termed body pushing to distinguish it from body packing where illicit drugs are wrapped and swallowed for transport and smuggling, and body stuffing where small amounts of loosely wrapped or unwrapped drugs are swallowed to conceal evidence from police. This case demonstrates that body pushing may not always involve illicit drugs or attempted concealment from police or customs officials. It appears that the drugs had been hidden to ensure an additional supply during the time of residence in hospital. The extent to which body pushing is currently being used by patients to smuggle drugs into secure medical facilities is yet to be determined.

Rectal foreign body insertion is a common condition in emergency surgery, which often requires surgical intervention. Here we report a clinical case of rectal foreign body insertion as a rare cause of persistent lumbosacral plexus injury. A 72-year-old man presented to the emergency department complaining of acute bilateral paraplegia with loss of sensation in both legs, as well as total urinary retention. The patient underwent abdominal computed tomography, which showed a rectal foreign body measuring 13 × 11.5 × 10 cm in the lower abdomen and pelvis. Extraluminal assistance through a median laparotomy was required after unsuccessful attempts at transanal recovery alone. After removal of the foreign body, the rectal wall and anorectal sphincter were massively dilated, with severe bruising of the rectal mucosa on proctoscopy. A protective loop-ileostomy was performed. The sacral plexus is located posteriorly in the pelvis. Physiologically, the nerves are well protected by surrounding anatomical structures. Post-traumatic lumbosacral plexus injuries with paraplegia, urinary retention and anorectal sphincter insufficiency occur quite frequently after heavy traffic accidents. Lumbosacral plexus injury as a result of rectal foreign body insertion is rare. Severe neurological deficits through rectal foreign body insertion are rare but known medical conditions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of severe and persistent post-traumatic lumbosacral plexus injury through a rectal foreign body.

Background: Patients with a rectal foreign body (RFB) are still a rare entity in general surgery departments but with an increasing incidence over the last years. This case is sometimes difficult to treat, and due to a lack of standardized treatment options, the aim of the study was to present our clinical experiences with the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to RFBs and a review of the currently available literature., Materials and Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from the patient's records of 20 patients who were treated due to an RFB between 2006 and 2016. Patient's demographics, circumstances of insertion, inserted objects, clinical presentation, laboratory and imaging results, as well as surgical treatment and duration of hospital stay were analyzed. Additionally, a review of the literature was performed with the search items "rectal foreign body" and "surgical therapy". Because many publications were just case reports, we did not perform a meta-analysis or a systematic review., Results: Twenty-two cases in 20 patients (80% male) presented to the emergency room. The mean age was 38.5±13.7 years. In 68.2% of the cases, the cause of RFB was due to sexual preferences. The following objects were inserted: six dildos, three vibrators, two bottles, one glass, one deodorant, one apple, one fever thermometer, multiple glass fragments and razor blades in one patient and six unknown objects. For 18 RFBs, manual peranal removal without anesthesia was possible in the emergency room, but two patients required intravenous analgesia. Two patients were transferred to the operating room and the foreign body was removed via the anus under general anesthesia. Open surgery with a laparotomy was necessary for two complicated cases. One patient was in need of surgery due to a vacuum generated by the RFB, whereas the second patient suffered from a sigmoid perforation. In all cases, there was no morbidity or mortality., Conclusion: In most cases, the removal of an RFB can be performed peranally in the emergency room without further complications, therefore representing the therapy of choice for RFB. Only in cases with perforation, acute abdomen, or failed peranal approaches, surgery is indicated to remove the foreign body., (©2017 Kokemohr P. et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Introduction: Most patients with foreign bodies in their rectums present to medical institutions within a few days. In this report, we describe a foreign body in the rectum in situ for 5 months that resulted in a huge rectovesical fistula 4cm in diameter, requiring emergency laparotomy., Presentation of Case: A 59-year-old man, who had undergone rectal foreign body extraction via the anal canal without any complications 7 years previously, presented with abdominal pain and diarrhea. Computed tomography revealed a cup-shaped rectal foreign body and huge rectovesical fistula. We performed an emergency laparotomy. There was no contaminated ascites. The adhesion around the fistula was too stiff to be dissected. We incised the rectal wall, excised the ceramic cup-shaped foreign body, and detected a fistula approximately 4cm in diameter. We performed sigmoid colostomy, and the incised rectal wall and the bladder wall were sutured, and the residual rectum was supposed to function as a part of the bladder. After the surgery, no severe complications occurred. The patient told us that he inserted the foreign body himself 5 months earlier, and urine had appeared in the stool in the previous month., Discussion: A long-term retained rectal foreign body is very rare and could create an abnormal huge fistula between the pelvic organs because of prolonged pressure on the walls of the pelvic organs., Conclusion: In patients with a long-term retained rectal foreign body, we should prepare for surgical treatment of not only the rectum but also the other pelvic organs., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Seasonality is noted in various aspects of human behavior and functioning which have led to an increasing interest in their seasonality in the recent years., Aims: We aimed to examine the seasonal variation in the incidence of rectal foreign bodies in the US using a large inpatient database., Methods: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to identify patients aged ≥18 years admitted with a primary diagnosis of the rectal foreign body from 2009 to 2011. We used the Edward's recognition and estimation of cyclic trend method to study the seasonal variation of the incidence of rectal foreign body and Z-test to compare the seasonal incidences., Results: A total of 3359 hospitalizations with primary diagnosis of the rectal foreign body were reported from 2009 to 2011. The peak incidence of rectal foreign bodies was seen in October (peak/low ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-1.32)., Conclusion: Data on seasonal variation of rectal foreign bodies are extremely limited. Further studies would be required to verify whether our findings of a higher incidence in the fall season are reflective of acute changes in the length of the days, climate, sleep-wake cycle, or decreased sexual intercourse at this time of the year. High suspicion at this time of the year may help promptly diagnose and avoid unnecessary investigations.

Introduction: Rectal foreign bodies are rare colorectal emergencies. They are important for the complications that may occur. Delayed response causes a wide range of complications or may even result in death., Presentation of Case: A 22 years old male patient was seen at our hospital with anal pain, discharge, and complaining of incontinence. The patient stated that a bottle of beverage was placed into his anal canal in an inverted manner for sexual satisfaction 5 years previously., Discussion: After clinical and radiological assessment under general anaesthesia in the lithotomy position the object was removed by a laparotomy. He was advised to seek legal help and he received psychiatric treatment in the postoperative period prior to his discharge., Conclusion: Complications such as abscess, perianal fistula complicated by severe pelvic sepsis and osteomyelitis were expected complications in this case. As in this case, a surgical approach may eliminate dissection planes, increasing morbidity and mortality related to the injuring of surrounding bodies during object extraction., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Rectal foreign bodies (RFB) present the modern surgeon with a difficult management dilemma, as the type of object, host anatomy, time from insertion, associated injuries and amount of local contamination may vary widely. Reluctance to seek medical help and to provide details about the incident often makes diagnosis difficult. Management of these patients may be challenging, as presentation is usually delayed after multiple attempts at removal by the patients themselves have proven unsuccessful., Presentation of Case: In this article we report the case of a male who presented with a large ovoid rectal object wedged into his pelvis. As we were unable to extract the object with routine transanal and laparotomy approach, we performed a pubic symphysiotomy that helped widen the pelvic inlet and allow transanal extraction., Discussion: We review currently available literature on RFB and propose an evaluation and management algorithm of patients that present with RFB., Conclusion: Management of patients with rectal foreign bodies can be challenging and a systematic approach should be employed. The majority of cases can be successfully managed conservatively, but occasional surgical intervention is warranted. If large objects, tightly wedged in the pelvis cannot be removed with laparotomy, pubic symphysiotomy should be considered.