J Korean Surgery Hand Soc Search

CLOSE


Arch Hand Microsurg > Epub ahead of print
Choo, Yoon, Lim, and Eo: Removal of soft tissue foreign bodies in the hand under microscopy: a retrospective observational study

Abstract

Purpose

Numerous studies have focused on techniques for detecting foreign bodies in soft tissue in the hand, but removal remains a subject of interest. In this study, we describe the microscope-assisted removal of foreign bodies in the hand.

Methods

We reviewed records of patients treated for foreign bodies in the hand at our department from July 2013 to May 2023. In 16 patients aged 23 to 55 years, the following variables were analyzed: the cause of trauma; the time interval from trauma to surgery; the location, type, size, and number of foreign bodies; patient complaints; imaging technique; and procedure type. Under local anesthesia, a slit incision was made at the suspected site. Foreign bodies were completely removed using micro-instruments under microscopic guidance.

Results

Stab injuries were the most common (n=13), and there was one case each of abrasion, traffic accident, and bee sting. The middle finger (n=5) was the most affected, followed by the thumb (n=4), index (n=3), little finger (n=2), ring finger (n=1), and palm (n=1). Foreign bodies included glass (n=6), wood (n=4), seashell (n=2), fish bone, a pencil tip, a bee stinger, and metal. Their size ranged from 1 to 20 mm. Patient complaints included a foreign body sensation, localized pain, swelling, discoloration, and a skin lesion. X-ray examinations were performed in all cases, and ultrasonography was conducted in five cases.

Conclusion

A microscopic approach allows precise, safe, and complete removal of foreign bodies without tissue damage, highlighting the efficacy of this technique in hand surgery.

Introduction

Remnant foreign bodies in the hand can be more than just a nuisance; they are often a significant cause of morbidity [1]. Prompt identification and removal of such foreign bodies are crucial since retained foreign bodies lead to late complications, such as infection or functional disability [2-4]. Therefore, in most cases, the removal of foreign bodies in soft tissues is warranted.
Soft tissue foreign bodies in the hand are sometimes dismissed as simple injuries, but accurate location and removal of them can be more clinically challenging than expected [5]. While numerous research studies have concentrated on strategies for pinpointing the location of foreign bodies, not many have provided detailed extraction techniques [6,7]. An experienced operator and specific localizing tool are mandatory in foreign body detection and removal. To remove soft tissue foreign bodies, many surgeons have made an elliptical incision roughly around the wound entry, and removed them en bloc, including the adjacent skin and soft tissues [2,5,8,9]. Although this procedure might be simple and straightforward, enduring surrounding soft tissue injury is inevitable. To minimize such damage, certain surgeons have attempted to remove foreign bodies in the hand with needle-guided technique, or using magnetic forceps [1,10].
In this study, we describe the microscope-assisted removal of foreign bodies in soft tissues with presenting intraoperative video clips. By microscopy, we could detect and remove foreign bodies exactly and safely regardless of their type, with minimal soft tissue exploration and dissection.

Methods

Ethics statement: The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital (No. 2024-10-009). Written informed consent was waived due to its retrospective study.
We conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of patients treated for foreign bodies in the hand in our department from July 2013 to May 2023. The analysis included various parameters, such as the cause of trauma, time interval from trauma to surgery, location, type, size, number of foreign bodies, patient complaints, imaging technique, and procedure types. Preoperative examinations comprised neurologic and functional tests to assess potential damage to muscles, tendons, and nerves resulting from the injury. Additionally, preoperative X-ray and ultrasonography were performed as needed.
To establish a bloodless field, a tourniquet was applied to the patient’s upper arm, followed by the administration of local anesthesia. A slit incision was then made over the suspected site of the foreign body. Under the microscope, we initially identified unhealthy granulation tissues beneath the surgical incision site. Upon locating these tissues, we gradually dissected around them and traced the location of the foreign body. Exploration of the wound was carefully performed to minimize adjacent soft tissue injuries. Complete removal of the foreign bodies was achieved using micro forceps. Finally, the incision site was safely closed with a horizontal mattress suture technique, using nylon 4−0.

Results

A total of 16 patients aged 23 to 55 years were included in this study (Table 1). There were six male and 10 female patients. The most common cause of trauma was stab injury, which accounted for 13 cases, followed by abrasion, traffic accident, and bee sting in each case. The mean interval from the occurrence of trauma to surgical intervention was 21.1 days, with a range spanning of 2–60 days. The most affected regions in the hand were the middle finger and thumb, which comprised five and four cases each, followed by three cases of the index finger, two cases of the little finger, and one case each of the ring finger and palm. The extracted foreign bodies were glass in six cases, wood in four case, seashell particles in two cases, and fish bone, pencil tip, bee sting, and aluminum foil in one case each. The foreign bodies were sized 1 to 20 mm in length, and less than 3 mm in 13 cases. In three cases, the foreign bodies were multiple ranging from two to 14 bodies; otherwise, they were single. The chief complaints of patients included sensation of foreign bodies and pain in nine cases, swelling in three cases, and discoloration and skin lesions in one case each on previous injury sites. We checked by X-ray in all cases and an additional ultrasonography in five cases. We explored the injury site safely under the microscope in all cases.

1. Case 1

A 29-year-old female patient presented to our clinic with pain in her left little finger (Fig. 1A). She reported being stung by a bee 2 days prior. Following the sting, she visited a pharmacy where the pharmacist attempted to remove the bee sting. However, she continued to experience pain and noted a pinpoint purplish discoloration. Upon examination, a 0.3-mm remnant of the bee sting was identified, and successfully removed under the microscope through an incision at the affected site (Fig. 1B, 1C; Supplementary Video 1). The patient was satisfied with the surgical outcome.

2. Case 2

A 51-year-old female patient visited our hospital with a foreign body sensation on her right 4th finger, after a stab injury by wood a month previously (Fig. 2A). Preoperative X-ray imaging failed to detect any foreign body. Ultrasonography revealed the presence of foreign material, suspected to be wood particles (Fig. 2B). Physical examination indicated a few millimeter-sized lumps over the right ring finger. However, under microscopic examination while tracing the protruding wood particle, we discovered two deeply embedded long wood splinters. We successfully removed two long wood splinters measuring 1 cm and 2 cm, respectively (Fig. 2C, 2D; Supplementary Video 2).

3. Case 3

A 25-year-old male patient presented with multiple bump-like skin lesions on his left palm and middle fingertip, accompanied by foreign body sensation (Fig. 3A). One month prior, he had sustained trauma to his hand from broken car glass during a car accident. X-ray imaging revealed multiple radiopaque foreign bodies (Fig. 3B). Each lesion was explored with separate incisions under the microscope. When making an incision on the patient’s tender spot compared to the preoperative X-ray, we could find percutaneous unhealthy granulation tissues. Through careful and gradual dissection of these granulation tissues, multiple glass particles were successfully removed from all the lesions on the palm (Fig. 3C, 3D; Supplementary Video 3).

Discussion

Patients with foreign bodies in the hand present various symptoms, such as localized hump, pain, swelling and numbness. The exact localization and removal of foreign bodies are important because untreated remnants might cause late infection, chronic pain, or sustained neurologic symptoms, such as numbness of the injured site [2,3,4]. Also, retained foreign bodies could migrate from the original injury site, causing severe neuropathy [11]. Therefore, removing foreign bodies in the hand is important and challenging, because not only are such bodies difficult to detect, but it is also not easy to remove them without injuring the surrounding soft tissue.
Foreign bodies in the hand, compared to other parts of the body, are typically small, and challenging to detect and remove completely. While the microscope-assisted removal of foreign bodies has been explored in the field of otolaryngology and ophthalmology, its utility is limited, as the use of endoscopes may suffice [12,13]. Many hand surgeons still opt for en bloc excision for simplicity, despite the importance of precise removal without injuring the surrounding tissues. Some hand surgeons still seem to be hesitant to use microscopes and prefer alternative tools, like fine needles [1,8], magnets for metallic foreign bodies [10], special tooth-like forceps [10], slit lamps [14], Hartmann alligators [2], and Halsted mosquito forceps [2]. Although microscope-assisted removal offers advantages over en bloc excision, it is not commonly practiced, even among experienced hand surgeons, due to the burden of using delicate micro-instruments. Some surgeons even suggest that patients leave non-troublesome foreign bodies untouched.
Various diagnostic tools have been applied to detect foreign bodies in the hand, such as X-ray, ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging [2,5,6]. Among them, the use of ultrasonography has been the golden standard for detecting soft tissue foreign bodies, as it has a sensitivity and specificity of (90 and 96) % respectively [2,8,15,16,17]. In our previous study, we placed a 26-gauge needle on the injury site to make a two-dimensional marking, which helped us detect the very small foreign body before a surgical approach [18].
In technical view under a microscope, locating and tracing the unhealthy granulation tissue is the key point in our procedure. Considering that the patients visit the clinic a few days or weeks after the accident (an average of 21.1 days in our study), the tissues of the body have a tendency to form a barrier with the squashed tissue, which is easily discernible from the adjacent normal tissue under the microscope. In our case 3, the foreign body was palpated as a short cord-like twig in the physical exam. However, we could completely remove the deeply penetrated sharp wig with very small particles. Furthermore, even the dark spot-like bee sting, which measured 0.3 mm, could be completely removed under the microscope, which has not previously been reported in the literature (Fig. 1C).
Surgical removal of foreign bodies in the hand has potential complications, such as neurovascular injury during the dissection, or later scar formation on the incision site [19]. However, in a microscopic setting, we could perform the most accurate and minimally invasive procedure to remove the foreign body in the hand. In one case of our study, the patient requested temporary digital paresthesia, the reason for which we suspected to be the finger tourniquet that we applied during the surgery. Therefore, we do not recommend a total surgery time of longer than 1 hour under a tourniquet, because it might cause permanent neurological complications, such as complex regional pain syndrome.
Our study has some limitations. First, the sample size may not be enough to make a standard guideline. Second, setting up a microscope for microsurgery may not be easy in many institutions. Third, even under microscopic assistance, only a skilled surgeon may be able to detect and remove foreign bodies. Fourth, this is a single-institution study, and all cases were performed by a single surgeon, so there might have been bias.

Conclusion

The successful detection and removal of foreign bodies in the hand have been primary concerns for many surgeons, with numerous studies exploring different methods of detecting residual foreign bodies, without delving into specific removal techniques. Despite the prevalent practice among hand surgeons to opt for en bloc excision or conservative management, we propose that the use of microscopes for the detection and removal of foreign bodies in the hand may offer the most precise and least invasive approach, combining efficiency with safety. By embracing microscope-assisted techniques, surgeons can enhance the accuracy of foreign body removal procedures, while minimizing collateral damage to the surrounding tissues, ultimately improving patient outcomes in hand surgery.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary Videos 1 to 3 can be found via https://doi.org/10.12790/ahm.24.0041.
Supplementary Video 1.
Supplementary Video 2.
Supplementary Video 3.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

None.

Fig. 1.
(A) A 29-year-old female patient presented with pain and a pinpoint purplish discoloration in her left fifth finger, after being stung by a bee. (B) Intraoperative findings of the foreign body. (C) A bee stinger smaller than 1 mm was successfully removed.
ahm-24-0041f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
(A) A 51-year-old female patient presented with a foreign body sensation on her right fourth finger (circle) after a stab injury by wood. (B) Preoperative ultrasonography findings displaying the foreign body. (C) Intraoperative finding of unhealthy granulation tissue and the foreign body. (D) The two wood splinters that were removed under microscope.
ahm-24-0041f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
(A) A 25-year-old male patient presented with a foreign body sensation and multiple skin lesions on the left palm and middle fingertip. (B) Preoperative X-ray findings showing multiple foreign bodies (arrows). (C) Intraoperative findings. We traced the unhealthy granulation tissues to approach the foreign body materials and successfully removed the glass particles. (D) Multiple glass particles that were removed successfully under microscope.
ahm-24-0041f3.jpg
Table 1.
Summary of the patients with hand foreign bodies
Patient No. Age (yr) Sex Cause of trauma Location Type Size (mm) Trauma to surgery interval (day) Single/multiple Complaints Imaging Procedure type
1 36 F Abrasion Thumb, Rt Aluminum foil 1.0 30 Single Pain, swelling X-ray Microscope
2 49 M Stab injury Radial aspect, PIP joint level, IF, Lt Wood 1.8 60 Single Pain X-ray, US Microscope
3 52 F Stab injury Volar aspect, P2 level, MF, Rt Fish bone 3.0 2 Single Pain X-ray Microscope
4 29 F Bee sting Volar aspect, LF, Lt Bee sting <1.0 2 Single Pain X-ray Microscope
5 59 M Stab injury Volar region, MF, Rt Wood 3.0 14 Single Pain, swelling X-ray, US Microscope
6 13 M Stab injury Distal palmar crease, palm, Lt Pencil 1.0 4 Single Discoloration, pain X-ray Microscope
7 52 F Stab injury Radial aspect, pulp, thumb, Rt Glass <1.0 30 Single Pain X-ray Microscope
8 15 F Stab injury Pulp, thumb, Rt Glass 1.0 21 Single Foreign body sensation, pain X-ray Microscope
9 36 M Stab injury Dorsal aspect, PIP joint level, LF, Rt Seashell <1.0 60 Single Foreign body sensation, swelling X-ray Microscope
10 34 F Stab injury Pulp, thumb, Rt Glass <1.0 4 Single Foreign body sensation X-ray, US Microscope
11 51 F Stab injury Volar aspect, P2, RF, Rt Wood 10.0/20.0 30 Multiple (2) Foreign body sensation X-ray, US Microscope
12 29 M Stab injury Pulp, MF, Rt Glass 8.0 30 Single Foreign body sensation X-ray Microscope
13 45 F Stab injury Dorsal aspect, PIP joint level, MF, Rt Seashell <1.0 14 Multiple (14) Foreign body sensation, pain, swelling X-ray Microscope
14 25 M Traffic accident Palm and pulp, MF, Lt Glass 1.0–4.0 30 Multiple Foreign body sensation, skin lesion X-ray Microscope
15 23 F Stab injury Pulp, IF, Rt Glass 3.0 10 Single Foreign body sensation X-ray Microscope
16 55 F Stab injury Radial aspect, P2, IF, Rt Wood 4.0 8 Single Foreign body sensation X-ray, US Microscope

F, female; M, male; Rt, right; Lt, left; PIP, proximal interphalangeal; IF, index finger; US, ultrasonography; MF, middle finger; RF, ring finger; LF, little finger.

References

1. Ebrahimi A, Radmanesh M, Rabiei S, Kavoussi H. Surgical removal of neglected soft tissue foreign bodies by needle-guided technique. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;25:29-36.
pmid pmc
2. Del Cura JL, Aza I, Zabala RM, Sarabia M, Korta I. US-guided localization and removal of soft-tissue foreign bodies. Radiographics. 2020;40:1188-95.
crossref pmid
3. Ipaktchi K, Demars A, Park J, Ciarallo C, Livermore M, Banegas R. Retained palmar foreign body presenting as a late hand infection: proposed diagnostic algorithm to detect radiolucent objects. Patient Saf Surg. 2013;7:25.
crossref pmid pmc
4. Strover RM. Hand infections secondary to fish bone injuries. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1994;76:353.
pmid pmc
5. Kurtulmuş T, Sağlam N, Saka G, Imam M, Akpinar F. Tips and tricks in the diagnostic workup and the removal of foreign bodies in extremities. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2013;47:387-92.
crossref pmid
6. Blankstein A, Cohen I, Heiman Z, Salai M, Heim M, Chechick A. Localization, detection and guided removal of soft tissue in the hands using sonography. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120:514-7.
crossref pmid pdf
7. Crystal CS, Masneri DA, Hellums JS, et al. Bedside ultrasound for the detection of soft tissue foreign bodies: a cadaveric study. J Emerg Med. 2009;36:377-80.
crossref pmid
8. Huttin C, Diaz JJ, Vernet P, Facca S, Igeta Y, Liverneaux P. Relevance of intraoperative ultrasound imaging for detecting foreign bodies in the hand: a series of 19 cases. Hand Surg Rehabil. 2018;37:363-7.
crossref pmid
9. Halaas GW. Management of foreign bodies in the skin. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76:683-8.
pmid
10. Xing GF, Shi CW, Qian HX, Qin XJ. Novel methods of removing metallic foreign body from human soft tissue: a report of 7390 cases. J Surg Res. 2013;183:337-40.
crossref pmid
11. Kirby D, Seigerman D. Pre-operative ultrasound localization for removal of a penetrating foreign body of forearm: technical note. Cureus. 2022;14:e26940.
crossref pmid pmc
12. Bressler K, Shelton C. Ear foreign-body removal: a review of 98 consecutive cases. Laryngoscope. 1993;103(4 Pt 1):367-70.
crossref pmid
13. Markan A, Chandra K, Singh R, Dogra M. Microscope integrated OCT (Mi-OCT) guided retrieval of intrastromal corneal foreign body. GMS Ophthalmol Cases. 2023;13:Doc09.
crossref pmid pmc
14. Seol SH, Oh S, Choi SC. Images in emergency medicine. Young man with pain in finger. Slit-lamp microscope use for soft tissue foreign body removal. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65:e3-4.
crossref pmid
15. Holmes GB, Bitterman A, Hsu AR, Sclamberg JS, Gitelis S. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for the removal of nonmetallic foreign body from the foot. Foot Ankle Spec. 2017;10:82-5.
crossref pdf
16. Tao K, Xu S, Liu XY, et al. Small metal soft tissue foreign body extraction by using 3D CT guidance: a reliable method. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:3339-43.
crossref pmid
17. Bray PW, Mahoney JL, Campbell JP. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in the diagnosis of foreign bodies in the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20:661-6.
crossref pmid
18. Kwon C, Rhee SC, Bahk SJ, Cho SH, Eo SR. Diagnosing micro foreign bodies with the microscope. Arch Reconstr Microsurg. 2014;23:93-6.
crossref
19. Gahhos F, Arons MS. Soft-tissue foreign body removal: management and presentation of a new technique. J Trauma. 1984;24:340-1.
pmid
20. Pan P. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous removal of soft-tissue foreign bodies in children. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2021;26:436-8.
crossref pmid pmc
21. Russell RC, Williamson DA, Sullivan JW, Suchy H, Suliman O. Detection of foreign bodies in the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 1991;16:2-11.
crossref pmid
22. Paziana K, Fields JM, Rotte M, Au A, Ku B. Soft tissue foreign body removal technique using portable ultrasonography. Wilderness Environ Med. 2012;23:343-8.
crossref pmid pdf
23. Potini VC, Francisco R, Shamian B, Tan V. Sequelae of foreign bodies in the wrist and hand. Hand (N Y). 2013;8:77-81.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
24. Smoot EC, Robson MC. Acute management of foreign body injuries of the hand. Ann Emerg Med. 1983;12:434-7.
crossref pmid
25. Choudhari KA, Muthu T, Tan MH. Progressive ulnar neuropathy caused by delayed migration of a foreign body. Br J Neurosurg. 2001;15:263-5.
crossref pmid
26. Orlinsky M, Bright AA. The utility of routine x-rays in all glass-caused wounds. Am J Emerg Med. 2006;24:233-6.
crossref pmid
TOOLS
Share :
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+ Line it
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •    
  • 42 View
  • 0 Download
Related articles in Arch Hand Microsurg

The Zitelli bilobed flap for soft tissue coverage after mucoid cyst resection: a retrospective cohort study2024 June;29(2)



About
Article and topics
Article category

Browse all articles >

Topics

Browse all articles >

Browse articles
Editorial policies
For contributors
Editorial Office
St. Vincent’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 93 Ji-dong, Paldal-gu, Suwon 16247, Korea
Tel: +82-31-249-7186    Fax: +82-31-254-7186    E-mail: journal@handmicro.org                

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Society for Surgery of the Hand, Korean Society for Microsurgery, and Korean Society for Surgery of the Peripheral Nerve.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next