Ultrasound-assisted foreign body extraction (U-SAFE): Review of technique and technical pearls.

INTRODUCTION: Soft tissue foreign bodies are a common presentation to emergency departments and primary care. They have variable presentations and associated morbidity depending on their acuity, location, functional impairment and neurovascular involvement. Traditional removal has utilised blind technique or surgical exploration. Their removal can be difficult secondary to induration, inflammation, granulation and scar tissue. Ultrasonography has emerged as a minimally invasive and inexpensive method of examination and retrieval. This article entails ultrasound-guided foreign body extraction with associated pearls of experience. METHODS: From March 2017 to August 2020, a fellowship trained interventional radiologist and a fellowship trained musculoskeletal radiologist performed 52 foreign body extractions under ultrasound guidance at a single institution. RESULTS: 52 foreign body extractions occurred over 3-year time period with a 95% success rate. The most common location of foreign body was the finger (62%) and feet/toes (17%). Foreign bodies identified include wood (31%), plant-based material (29%), metal (17%), glass (17%) and synthetic material (6%). Two unsuccessful cases were secondary to delayed presentation with significant foreign body reaction and the 2nd due to patient psychiatric issues. There were no identified complications. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography-guided foreign body extraction is a minimally invasive, efficient and targeted technique for foreign body removal.

Magnetic resonance characterisation of primary Raynaud's phenomenon.

The objective findings of phalangeal T2-weighted hyperintense and T1-weighted hypointense bone marrow signal on MRI without features of seronegative arthropathy or osteomyelitis may assist clinicians in making a diagnosis in the appropriate clinical context.

Parosteal lipoma of the rib: A rare condition in an uncommon location.

A 36-year-old female patient was diagnosed with a parosteal lipoma arising from the left 3rd rib. This was preluded by a 5-year history of an asymptomatic and stable mass at the medial aspect of the left scapula. It had displayed an interval enlargement in the preceding 3 months which prompted investigation to rule out an aggressive lesion. The patient was investigated with CT, MRI and PET scan which demonstrated a well-circumscribed juxtacortical fatty mass with osseous excrescence and no enhancing soft tissue components or FDG avidity in the fatty component, in keeping with a parosteal lipoma. CT-guided biopsy allowed histopathological correlation which facilitated the exclusion of an aggressive lesion and supported the imaging diagnosis. This case is a pertinent educational tool for radiologists and orthopaedic surgeons as it characterises a rare and benign pathology in an uncommon location, with mimicry of malignant differential diagnoses such as liposarcoma and chondrosarcoma. We aim to bring awareness to this condition and its typical imaging characteristics and thus allowing radiologists to make more confident conclusions in future cases.

Assessment of short-term response and review of technique of ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release for the treatment of trigger finger.

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous first annular pulley (A1) release is a non-surgical management for the treatment of trigger finger, also known as stenosing tenosynovitis. Trigger finger occurs secondary to inflammation and retinacular sheath hypertrophy with subsequent restriction of the flexor tendons. Trigger finger can have a marked functional impact, with current conservative measures including steroids and/or splinting, and surgical therapy involving open release. METHODS: A population of 20 adult patients with ultrasound proven trigger finger underwent percutaneous release with refined technique. Patients with additional ultrasound proven tenosynovitis received steroid injection. RESULTS: Of the 20 cases, 18 cases involved the fingers, 2 cases involved the thumb and 14 cases had additional tenosynovitis. All procedures involving the fingers were well tolerated with initial symptomatic and functional relief. At 1-week post-intervention, 2 finger cases without concurrent steroid injection represented with pain but not triggering. Cases which did not receive concurrent steroid injection described post-procedural pain requiring oral analgesia. One case involving the thumb was complicated by no relief with a mild radial digital nerve neuropraxia, with near complete resolution at 6 weeks. The second thumb case reported only partial relief of triggering. CONCLUSION: US-guided percutaneous release of the A1 pulley is an effective procedure in achieving at least short-term resolution of trigger finger. It is best reserved for fingers due to the challenging anatomy of the thumb.

Review of topical gelatin-based haemostatic agents; an insidious culprit of intraoperative anaphylaxis?

BACKGROUND: An under-recognized complication of gelatin-based haemostatic agents is their potential to cause anaphylactic reactions. This review aims to collate and analyse case in the literature of intraoperative anaphylaxis secondary to locally applied haemostatic agents. METHODS: An electronic search was performed on databases Medline, Embase, Pubmed and ProQuest. A total of 7671 articles were reviewed from title and abstract. After exclusion criteria and duplicates removed, 19 articles with 21 cases were included for analysis. Data extracted from each of the articles included patient demographics, haemostatic agent used, surgery type, known allergies and any objective evidence of hypersensitivity post anaphylactic episode, that is tryptase levels, IgE levels, skin prick testing. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of cases involved patients <18 years of age; 57% of cases involved spinal surgery; 100% of cases displayed objective evidence of hypersensitivity (tryptase levels, bovine or porcine IgE levels, or skin prick testing). Thirty-three percent of patients had exposure preoperatively to a known agent causing anaphylaxis or allergy which would preclude the use of a gelatin-based haemostat. These products included vaccines, spam meats, red meat, Jell-O and CollaPlug. Gelatin-based haemostat agents included Floseal, Gelfoam, Surgiflo, fibrin glue, Avitene, haemofibrine sponge, topical bovine thrombin and thrombin-soaked gelatin. CONCLUSION: Increased awareness of allergy to gelatin-based haemostats for surgical and anaesthetic is imperative, with 33% of cases having a known contraindication to gelatin-based haemostat. This review highlights important aspects in the pre-operative patient history and post-event patient investigation that could assist anaesthetists and surgeons in the prevention of future events.