CT-Guided Retrieval of a Retained, Migrating Oral Cavity Grill Brush Bristle

Miller, Nathaniel William; Perkins, Jonathan N.; Hong, Steven; Costello, Justin E.

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2021.06.023

Cited by 2 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For bristles presenting within the DN or migrating to the DN, 14,28,43,50 successful removal was achieved by transoral surgery via pharyngotomy, 15,44 transcervical open surgery, [2][3][4]7,16,19,21,22,28,54,56,60 or minimally invasive surgery. 43,44,50 Minimally invasive surgery with intraoperative imaging should be considered an option given the potential for less morbidity. 27,43,44,50 All minimally invasive reports were successful, 27,43,44,50 but this may be confounded by reporting bias.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A systematic search was performed per the PRISMA literature selection process ( Figure 1 ). 2-9,12-75 Two authors (N.M. and Y.M.) independently searched the literature for relevant articles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining failed fluoroscopy attempt was in conjunction with oral exploration of the tongue and floor of mouth, and this bristle was removed transcutaneously under CT guidance. 50 Interestingly, there was 1 UADT case where transoral surgery was attempted without intraoperative imaging or other adjunct and was successful. 52 Intraoperative fluoroscopy was attempted in 17.6% (3/17) of DN cases and was 100% successful.…”

Section: Other Adjunctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…44 There were no attempts at intraoperative ultrasound or CT for cases that primarily presented in the DN, although bristles in 2 primary UADT cases had migrated to the DN prior to successful attempts at CT-guided removal after an ultrasound attempt. 43,50 Another primary UADT case included successful fluoroscopy-guided neck exploration after migration to the DN. 28 Among the abdominal cases, there was 1 attempt of intraoperative ultrasound (3.8%, 1/26).…”

Section: Other Adjunctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three cases primarily presented with bristle in the UADT. 27,43,50 One of these migrated to the DN, and the bristle was percutaneously removed under intraoperative CT guidance with a Chiba needle and vascular sheath. 43 The other case, from our institution, 50 migrated to the submental space on follow-up imaging after 2 failed floor of mouth explorations.…”

Section: Other Adjunctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Hazards and Management of Wire Bristle ingestions: A Systematic Review

Miller¹,

Noller²,

León

et al. 2021

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Inadvertently ingested grill brush bristles can lodge in various locations and lead to a variety of injuries. They can also be difficult to identify and remove. Our primary objective was to perform a systematic review of cases reported in the literature, with analysis of trends in clinical presentation and success of diagnostic modalities and treatment approaches. Data Sources Cases of reported grill brush bristle ingestion reported in PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar databases through April 30, 2021. Review Methods Databases were searched for the following terms: (“ingestion” OR “injury” OR “barbeque” OR “BBQ” OR “grill” OR “foreign body” OR “brush” AND “wire” OR “bristle”). Data were collected on patient demographics, clinical presentation, and treatment course. Statistical analysis was performed on characteristics with low risk of confounding. Results An overall 57 studies involving 91 patients were included. Grill brush bristles presented most commonly in the upper aerodigestive tract (48/91), followed by the abdomen (26/91) and deep neck (17/91). Computed tomography was the most accurate imaging modality for initial diagnosis, identifying 92.8% of bristles. Less invasive or adjunctive techniques such as endoscopy, intraoperative imaging, or minimally invasive surgery may be useful particularly for bristles located in the head and neck given the low rate of success of transoral surgery (66.7%). Conclusion Although this review of retained bristle may be biased toward complex cases, retained grill brush bristles represent an underrecognized and difficult-to-manage hazard. When cases are suspected, clinicians should obtain computed tomography imaging based on presentation and tailor management appropriately.

show abstract