link
Bookmarks
Gastrointestinal
Diagnosis
Abdominal Manifestations of Systemic Conditions
Trauma
Foreign Bodies
Foreign Bodies
Siva P. Raman, MD
To access 4,300 diagnoses written by the world's leading experts in radiology, please log in or subscribe.Subscribe
0
19
2
2

KEY FACTS

  • Imaging

    TERMINOLOGY

    • Abbreviations

      • Foreign body (FB)

    • Definitions

      • Ingestion or insertion of potentially injurious foreign objects into any site within body

    IMAGING

    • General Features

      • Imaging Recommendations

        • Ingested Foreign Bodies

          • Inserted Foreign Bodies

            • Retained Surgical Items

              • Intentionally Retained Surgical Material

                DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST

                • Consider

                  • Image Interpretation Pearls

                    • Reporting Tips

                      Selected References

                      1. Carneiro BC et al: Multimodality imaging of foreign bodies: new insights into old challenges. Radiographics. 40(7):1965-86, 2020
                      2. Li QY et al: Sonographic appearances of retained surgical sponges in the abdomen and pelvis. J Clin Ultrasound. 48(3):156-9, 2020
                      3. Marín-Díez E et al: Ultrasonography of subcutaneous foreign bodies: differences depending on their nature, complications, and potential diagnostic errors. Radiologia. 62(1):3-12, 2020
                      4. Guelfguat M et al: Clinical guidelines for imaging and reporting ingested foreign bodies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(1):37-53, 2014
                      5. Jarraya M et al: Multimodality imaging of foreign bodies of the musculoskeletal system. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(1):W92-102, 2014
                      6. Stawicki SP et al: Natural history of retained surgical items supports the need for team training, early recognition, and prompt retrieval. Am J Surg. 208(1):65-72, 2014
                      7. Ma J et al: Value of MDCT in diagnosis and management of esophageal sharp or pointed foreign bodies according to level of esophagus. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 201(5):W707-11, 2013
                      8. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al: Management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions. Gastrointest Endosc. 73(6):1085-91, 2011
                      9. Gayer G et al: Foreign objects encountered in the abdominal cavity at CT. Radiographics. 31(2):409-28, 2011
                      10. Karabulut N et al: CT features of intrathoracic gossypiboma (textiloma). Diagn Interv Radiol. 17(2):122-4, 2011
                      11. Yadav MK et al: Gossypiboma: stretched feces sign. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 195(5):W375, 2010
                      12. Manzella A et al: Imaging of gossypibomas: pictorial review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 193(6 Suppl):S94-101, 2009
                      13. Regenbogen SE et al: Prevention of retained surgical sponges: a decision-analytic model predicting relative cost-effectiveness. Surgery. 145(5):527-35, 2009
                      14. Greenberg CC et al: Retained foreign bodies. Adv Surg. 42:183-91, 2008
                      15. Murphy CF et al: Diagnosis of gossypiboma of the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 190(6):W382, 2008
                      16. O'Connor AR et al: Retained surgical materials in the postoperative abdomen and pelvis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 25(3):290-302, 2004
                      17. Hunter TB et al: Foreign bodies. Radiographics. 23(3):731-57, 2003
                      18. O'Connor AR et al: Imaging of retained surgical sponges in the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Feb;180(2):481-9. Erratum in: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 180(4):1179, 2003
                      19. Oto A et al: MR characteristics of oxidized cellulose (Surgicel). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 172(6):1481-4, 1999
                      20. Sahin-Akyar G et al: Pseudotumour due to surgical sponge: gossypiboma. Australas Radiol. 41(3):288-91, 1997
                      21. Melamed JW et al: Sonographic appearance of oxidized cellulose (Surgicel): pitfall in the diagnosis of postoperative abscess. J Ultrasound Med. 14(1):27-30, 1995
                      22. Boutin RD et al: Injuries associated with MR imaging: survey of safety records and methods used to screen patients for metallic foreign bodies before imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 162(1):189-94, 1994
                      23. Young ST et al: Appearance of oxidized cellulose (Surgicel) on postoperative CT scans: similarity to postoperative abscess. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 160(2):275-7, 1993
                      24. Arablinskiĭ AV et al: [Ultrasonography and computed tomography in the detection of overlooked gauze surgical dressings.] Vestn Rentgenol Radiol. (2):16-9, 1992
                      25. Flom LL et al: Radiologic evaluation of foreign bodies. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 10(1):163-77, 1992
                      26. Mochizuki T et al: Case report: MR appearance of a retained surgical sponge. Clin Radiol. 46(1):66-7, 1992
                      27. Buy JN et al: Computed tomography of retained abdominal sponges and towels. Gastrointest Radiol. 14(1):41-5, 1989
                      28. Liessi G et al: Retained surgical gauzes: acute and chronic CT and US findings. Eur J Radiol. 9(3):182-6, 1989
                      29. Choi BI et al: Retained surgical sponge: diagnosis with CT and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 150(5):1047-50, 1988
                      30. Kokubo T et al: Retained surgical sponges: CT and US appearance. Radiology. 165(2):415-8, 1987
                      31. Schwartz GF et al: Ingested foreign bodies of the gastrointestinal tract. Am Surg. 42(4):236-8, 1976
                      Related Anatomy
                      Loading...
                      Related Differential Diagnoses
                      Loading...
                      References
                      Tables

                      Tables

                      KEY FACTS

                      • Imaging

                        TERMINOLOGY

                        • Abbreviations

                          • Foreign body (FB)

                        • Definitions

                          • Ingestion or insertion of potentially injurious foreign objects into any site within body

                        IMAGING

                        • General Features

                          • Imaging Recommendations

                            • Ingested Foreign Bodies

                              • Inserted Foreign Bodies

                                • Retained Surgical Items

                                  • Intentionally Retained Surgical Material

                                    DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST

                                    • Consider

                                      • Image Interpretation Pearls

                                        • Reporting Tips

                                          Selected References

                                          1. Carneiro BC et al: Multimodality imaging of foreign bodies: new insights into old challenges. Radiographics. 40(7):1965-86, 2020
                                          2. Li QY et al: Sonographic appearances of retained surgical sponges in the abdomen and pelvis. J Clin Ultrasound. 48(3):156-9, 2020
                                          3. Marín-Díez E et al: Ultrasonography of subcutaneous foreign bodies: differences depending on their nature, complications, and potential diagnostic errors. Radiologia. 62(1):3-12, 2020
                                          4. Guelfguat M et al: Clinical guidelines for imaging and reporting ingested foreign bodies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(1):37-53, 2014
                                          5. Jarraya M et al: Multimodality imaging of foreign bodies of the musculoskeletal system. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(1):W92-102, 2014
                                          6. Stawicki SP et al: Natural history of retained surgical items supports the need for team training, early recognition, and prompt retrieval. Am J Surg. 208(1):65-72, 2014
                                          7. Ma J et al: Value of MDCT in diagnosis and management of esophageal sharp or pointed foreign bodies according to level of esophagus. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 201(5):W707-11, 2013
                                          8. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al: Management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions. Gastrointest Endosc. 73(6):1085-91, 2011
                                          9. Gayer G et al: Foreign objects encountered in the abdominal cavity at CT. Radiographics. 31(2):409-28, 2011
                                          10. Karabulut N et al: CT features of intrathoracic gossypiboma (textiloma). Diagn Interv Radiol. 17(2):122-4, 2011
                                          11. Yadav MK et al: Gossypiboma: stretched feces sign. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 195(5):W375, 2010
                                          12. Manzella A et al: Imaging of gossypibomas: pictorial review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 193(6 Suppl):S94-101, 2009
                                          13. Regenbogen SE et al: Prevention of retained surgical sponges: a decision-analytic model predicting relative cost-effectiveness. Surgery. 145(5):527-35, 2009
                                          14. Greenberg CC et al: Retained foreign bodies. Adv Surg. 42:183-91, 2008
                                          15. Murphy CF et al: Diagnosis of gossypiboma of the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 190(6):W382, 2008
                                          16. O'Connor AR et al: Retained surgical materials in the postoperative abdomen and pelvis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 25(3):290-302, 2004
                                          17. Hunter TB et al: Foreign bodies. Radiographics. 23(3):731-57, 2003
                                          18. O'Connor AR et al: Imaging of retained surgical sponges in the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Feb;180(2):481-9. Erratum in: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 180(4):1179, 2003
                                          19. Oto A et al: MR characteristics of oxidized cellulose (Surgicel). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 172(6):1481-4, 1999
                                          20. Sahin-Akyar G et al: Pseudotumour due to surgical sponge: gossypiboma. Australas Radiol. 41(3):288-91, 1997
                                          21. Melamed JW et al: Sonographic appearance of oxidized cellulose (Surgicel): pitfall in the diagnosis of postoperative abscess. J Ultrasound Med. 14(1):27-30, 1995
                                          22. Boutin RD et al: Injuries associated with MR imaging: survey of safety records and methods used to screen patients for metallic foreign bodies before imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 162(1):189-94, 1994
                                          23. Young ST et al: Appearance of oxidized cellulose (Surgicel) on postoperative CT scans: similarity to postoperative abscess. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 160(2):275-7, 1993
                                          24. Arablinskiĭ AV et al: [Ultrasonography and computed tomography in the detection of overlooked gauze surgical dressings.] Vestn Rentgenol Radiol. (2):16-9, 1992
                                          25. Flom LL et al: Radiologic evaluation of foreign bodies. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 10(1):163-77, 1992
                                          26. Mochizuki T et al: Case report: MR appearance of a retained surgical sponge. Clin Radiol. 46(1):66-7, 1992
                                          27. Buy JN et al: Computed tomography of retained abdominal sponges and towels. Gastrointest Radiol. 14(1):41-5, 1989
                                          28. Liessi G et al: Retained surgical gauzes: acute and chronic CT and US findings. Eur J Radiol. 9(3):182-6, 1989
                                          29. Choi BI et al: Retained surgical sponge: diagnosis with CT and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 150(5):1047-50, 1988
                                          30. Kokubo T et al: Retained surgical sponges: CT and US appearance. Radiology. 165(2):415-8, 1987
                                          31. Schwartz GF et al: Ingested foreign bodies of the gastrointestinal tract. Am Surg. 42(4):236-8, 1976