2022
DOI: 10.1213/xaa.0000000000001565
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lost Venous Access Guidewire Identified by Its Late Cervical Protrusion: Case Report

Abstract: We report a pediatric patient who underwent a central venous catheter (CVC) insertion and presented with a sudden protrusion of a guidewire from the neck 26 months later. The guidewire was extracted via femoral venotomy. A 5-cm portion of the guidewire adhering to the superior vena cava wall was left in place. We recommend always using a CVC checklist, inspecting the guidewire before and after insertion, and carefully examining the postinsertion radiographs. This checklist should be mandatory with every CVC in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 15 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“… 8 The retained guidewire is usually detected during a procedure, but there have been cases where a diagnosis was discovered incidentally several months later during routine radiology diagnostics. 9 Possible signs that guide the recognition of guidewire retention include slow backflow from the distal tip or resistance to injection, a missing guidewire after the procedure, or radiological suspicion during radiology diagnostics. 10 , 11 Although a nurse in this case alerted the operator of slow backflow, the operator was not aware of the potential sign of guidewire retention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 8 The retained guidewire is usually detected during a procedure, but there have been cases where a diagnosis was discovered incidentally several months later during routine radiology diagnostics. 9 Possible signs that guide the recognition of guidewire retention include slow backflow from the distal tip or resistance to injection, a missing guidewire after the procedure, or radiological suspicion during radiology diagnostics. 10 , 11 Although a nurse in this case alerted the operator of slow backflow, the operator was not aware of the potential sign of guidewire retention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%