Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kurer MA, Davey C, Khan S et al (2010) Colorectal foreign bodies: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 12(9):851–861

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim JH, Um E, Jung SM et al (2020) The management of retained rectal foreign body. Ann Coloproctol 36(5):335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ayantunde AA, Unluer Z (2016) Increasing trend in retained rectal foreign bodies. World J Gastrointest Surg 8(10):679–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schellenberg M, Brown CVR, Trust MD et al (2020) Rectal injury after foreign body insertion: secondary analysis from the AAST contemporary management of rectal injuries study group. J Surg Res 247:541–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldberg JE, Steele SR (2010) Rectal foreign bodies. Surg Clin North Am 90(1):173–84 (Table of Contents)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang WC, Jiang JK, Wang HS et al (2003) Retained rectal foreign bodies. J Chin Med Assoc 66(10):607–612

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lake JP, Essani R, Petrone P et al (2004) Management of retained colorectal foreign bodies: predictors of operative intervention. Dis Colon Rectum 47(10):1694–1698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Polackwich AS, Shoskes DA (2016) Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a review of evaluation and therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19(2):132–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bharucha AE, Lee TH (2016) Anorectal and pelvic pain. Mayo Clin Proc 91(10):1471–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Masterson TA, Masterson JM, Azzinaro J et al (2017) Comprehensive pelvic floor physical therapy program for men with idiopathic chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a prospective study. Transl Androl Urol 6(5):910–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shao F, Shen N, Hong Z et al (2020) Injuries due to foreign body ingestion and insertion in children: 10 years of experience at a single institution. J Paediatr Child Health 56(4):537–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mahapatra RS, Priyadarshi V, Madduri VK, et al. 2014 Transrectal impalement of an incense stick in a child presenting as foreign body in the urinary bladder. BMJ Case Rep 2014.

  15. Fischer J, Krishnamurthy J, Hansen S, et al. (2019) Austere foreign body injuries in children and adolescents: a characterization of penile, rectal, and vaginal injuries presenting to emergency departments in the United States from 2008 to 2017. Pediatr Emerg Care

  16. Yildiz SY, Kendirci M, Akbulut S et al (2013) Colorectal emergencies associated with penetrating or retained foreign bodies. World J Emerg Surg 8(1):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ye H, Huang S, Zhou Q et al (2018) Migration of a foreign body to the rectum: a case report and literature review. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(28):e11512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Anderson KL, Dean AJ (2011) Foreign bodies in the gastrointestinal tract and anorectal emergencies. Emerg Med Clin North Am 29(2):369–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ikram S, Singh S, Kallam R, et al. (2017) A play that went wrong: unique presentation of bowel perforation from an unusually large per-rectal foreign body. BMJ Case Rep 2017.

  20. Coskun A, Erkan N, Yakan S et al (2013) Management of rectal foreign bodies. World J Emerg Surg 8(1):11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Arvieux C, Thony F, Broux C et al (2012) Current management of severe pelvic and perineal trauma. J Visc Surg 149(4):e227–e238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hornez E, Monchal T, Boddaert G et al (2016) Penetrating pelvic trauma: initial assessment and surgical management in emergency. J Visc Surg 153(4 Suppl):79–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahern DP, Kelly ME, Courtney D et al (2017) The management of penetrating rectal and anal trauma: a systematic review. Injury 48(6):1133–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clemens MS, Peace KM, Yi F (2018) Rectal trauma: evidence-based practices. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 31(1):17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cologne KG, Ault GT (2012) Rectal foreign bodies: what is the current standard? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 25(4):214–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fleres F, Ieni A, Saladino E et al (2018) Rectal perforation by inadvertent ingestion of a blister pack: a case report and review of literature. World J Clin Cases 6(10):384–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the Department of Emergency, Klinikum Stuttgart, for their contribution to the study. Moreover, the authors thank Sandra Cseledes for data collection and Angelika Hildebrandt for English language editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SF, HK, and CMS were responsible for data collection. SF, HK, and JK analyzed and interpreted the patient data. SF, HK, JK, and CMS were major contributors in writing the manuscript. AS, GMR, SB, CR, and SL contributed significantly by proofreading the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Fritz.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was designed as an observational retrospective analysis. The study did not influence the therapy in any way.

Consent for publication

The present manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fritz, S., Killguss, H., Schaudt, A. et al. Proposal of an algorithm for the management of rectally inserted foreign bodies: a surgical single-center experience with review of the literature. Langenbecks Arch Surg 407, 2499–2508 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02571-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02571-z

Keywords

Navigation