Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Sep;407(6):2499-2508.
doi: 10.1007/s00423-022-02571-z. Epub 2022 Jun 2.

Proposal of an algorithm for the management of rectally inserted foreign bodies: a surgical single-center experience with review of the literature

Affiliations
Review

Proposal of an algorithm for the management of rectally inserted foreign bodies: a surgical single-center experience with review of the literature

Stefan Fritz et al. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Retained rectal foreign bodies (RFBs) are uncommon clinical findings. Although the management of RFBs is rarely reported in the literature, clinicians regularly face this issue. To date, there is no standardized management of RFBs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate our own data and subsequently develop a treatment algorithm.

Methods: All consecutive patients who presented between January 2006 and December 2019 with rectally inserted RFBs at the emergency department of the Klinikum Stuttgart, Germany, were retrospectively identified. Clinicopathologic features, management, complications, and outcomes were assessed. Based on this experience, a treatment algorithm was developed.

Results: A total of 69 presentations with rectally inserted RFBs were documented in 57 patients. In 23/69 cases (33.3%), the RFB was removed transanally by the emergency physician either digitally (n = 14) or with the help of a rigid rectoscope (n = 8) or a colonoscope (n = 1). In 46/69 cases (66.7%), the RFB was removed in the operation theater under general anesthesia with muscle relaxation. Among these, 11/46 patients (23.9%) underwent abdominal surgery, either for manual extraction of the RFB (n = 9) or to exclude a bowel perforation (n = 2). Surgical complications occurred in 3/11 patients. One patient with rectal perforation developed pelvic sepsis and underwent abdominoperineal extirpation in the further clinical course.

Conclusion: The management of RFBs can be challenging and includes a wide range of options from removal without further intervention to abdominoperineal extirpation in cases of pelvic sepsis. Whenever possible, RFBs should obligatorily be managed in specialized colorectal centers following a clear treatment algorithm.

Keywords: Emergency; Foreign body; Management; Rectum; Sepsis; Surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Shaban Y, Elkbuli A, Ovakimyan V et al (2019) Rectal foreign body causing perforation: case report and literature review. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 47:66–69 - DOI
    1. Kurer MA, Davey C, Khan S et al (2010) Colorectal foreign bodies: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 12(9):851–861 - DOI
    1. Kim JH, Um E, Jung SM et al (2020) The management of retained rectal foreign body. Ann Coloproctol 36(5):335–343 - DOI
    1. Kokemohr P, Haeder L, Fromling FJ et al (2017) Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience. Innov Surg Sci 2(2):89–95 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Ayantunde AA, Unluer Z (2016) Increasing trend in retained rectal foreign bodies. World J Gastrointest Surg 8(10):679–684 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources