CASE PRESENTATION: A 76-year old male patient, presented to the department with a chief complaint of sensitivity in his upper right back tooth due to attrition. After assessing the pulp status, root canal therapy was planned for the tooth. During the procedure, it was noticed that the dental bur slipped out of the hand piece and the patient had accidentally ingested it. The patient was conscious and had no trouble while breathing at the time of ingestion of the bur although he had mild cough which lasted for a short duration. The dental procedure was aborted immediately and the patient was taken to the hospital for emergency care. The presence and location of the dental bur was confirmed using chest and abdominal x-rays and it was subsequently retrieved by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedure under general anaesthesia on the same day as a part of the emergency procedure. The analysis of this case reaffirms the importance of the use of physical barriers such as rubber dams and gauze screens as precautionary measures to prevent such incidents from occurring.
CONCLUSION: Ingestion of instruments are uncertain and hazardous complications to encounter during a dental procedure. The need for physical barrier like rubber dam is mandatory for all dental procedures. However, the dentist should be well trained to handle such medical emergencies and reassure the patient by taking them into confidence. Each incident encountered should be thoroughly documented to supply adequate guidance for treatment aspects. This would fulfil the professional responsibilities of the dentist/ clinician and may help avoid possible legal and ethical issues. This case report emphasizes on the need for the usage of physical barriers during dental procedures in order to avoid medical emergencies.
A 53-year-old woman presented with left-sided abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting for the past 3 months with associated loss of appetite and weight. On physical examination, there was a large, ill-defined, firm mass at the epigastrium. Ultrasonography showed heterogeneously hypoechoic filling defect within the dilated main portal vein. The filling defect showed florid signals on Doppler mode and it appeared to be an extension of a larger periportal mass. Contrast enhanced abdominal computed tomography confirmed a large distal gastric mass infiltrating into the periportal structures, including the main portal vein and the splenic vein. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed 2 days later showed an irregular, exophytic mass extending from the antrum into the first part of duodenum. The mass was deemed inoperable. Histopathological examination showed gastric adenocarcinoma. She was started on anticoagulant, chemotherapy and pain management. Follow-up computed tomography 4 months later showed liver metastases and formation of collateral blood vessels.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study of consecutive adult patients attending an open access endoscopy list for the primary indication of dyspepsia was conducted. Independent epidemiological and clinical factors for CSEF were determined prospectively.
RESULTS: Data for 1167/1208 (96.6 %) adults (mean age 49.7 ± 15.9 years, 42.4 % males, ethnic distribution: 30.5 % Malays, 36.9 % Chinese and 30.8 % Indians) were analysed between January 2007 and August 2008. Three-hundred and eight (26.4 %) patients were found to have CSEF, most often those with age ≥45 years (30.3 vs 19 %, P < 0.0001), male gender (34.1 vs 20.7 % female, P < 0.0001), lower education levels (i.e. primary or no education), smoking (36.7 vs 24.9 %, P = 0.003), H. pylori infection (40.6 vs 21.8 %, P < 0.0001), and duration of dyspepsia ≤5 months (32.8 vs 24.4 %, P = 0.006). Age ≥ 45 years (OR 1.82, 95 % CI = 1.38-2.48), male gender (OR 1.84, 95 % CI = 1.53-2.59), H. pylori infection (OR 2.36, 95 % CI = 1.83-3.26), and duration of dyspepsia ≤5 months (OR 1.44, 95 % CI = 1.13-2.03) were subsequently identified as independent risk factors for CSEF.
CONCLUSION: CSEF are found in 26.4 % of Asian adults with uninvestigated dyspepsia. Duration of symptoms <5 months, among other recognised factors, is predictive of CSEF.