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.
Methods: We described three different surgical techniques for correction of penile paraffinoma based on our single-centre experience. Informed consents were obtained from patients whose photographs were taken during the operation step.
Results: In general, three patients had simple excision biopsy with primary suturing, four patients underwent single stage excision of circumferential granuloma with bilateral scrotal skin flap reconstruction and one patient experienced dual stage procedure. Three of them were injected with paraffin, one with silicone and the remaining four were unable to identify the substance used. All patients successfully underwent the surgical procedure and four of them had minor post-operative surgical site infection and wound gapping.
Conclusion: All patients recovered well and the mean International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score obtained was 24.25. In our experience, excision biopsy was adequate for focal mass and reconstructive surgery using bilateral scrotal flap was suitable for circumferential mass.
METHODS: We trained twenty-three participants from twelve Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies about international guidelines for medical device vigilance. We developed and used six virtual cases and six questions. We divided participants into six groups and compared their opinions. We also surveyed the country's opinion to investigate the beginning point of 'patient use'. The phases of 'patient use' are divided into: 1) inspecting, 2) preparing, and 3) applying medical device.
RESULTS: As for the question on the beginning point of 'patient use,' 28.6%, 35.7%, and 35.7% of participants provided answers regarding the first, second, and third phases, respectively. In training for applying international guidelines to virtual cases, only one of the six questions reached a consensus between the two groups in all six virtual cases. For the other five questions, different judgments were given in at least two groups.
CONCLUSION: From training courses using virtual cases, we found that there was no consensus on 'patient use' point of view of medical devices. There was a significant difference in applying definitions of adverse events written in guidelines regarding the medical device associated incidents. Our results point out that international harmonization effort is needed not only to harmonize differences in regulations between countries but also to overcome diversity in perspectives existing at the site of medical device use.
Presentation of case: In this case, we conceded that both iatrogenic and self-infliction were culpable. The intoxicated, aggressive patient forcefully removed the inserted cannula after repeated attempts by medical personnel to place it. The same cannula was used for multiple attempts. After the location of the fractured catheter was reconfirmed with radiological imaging, venotomy and removal of the foreign body were performed.
Conclusion: Due to potentially devastating consequences, early detection, adherence to standard operating procedures for peripheral venous access, management of aggressive patients, and meticulous teamwork must be upheld.
CASE REPORT: A case of ureterovaginal fistula associated with a neglected vaginal foreign body. The patient was complaining of a foul-smelling vaginal discharge and lower abdominal pain. On vaginal examination, a hard and large foreign body was found. Examination under anesthesia was performed, and an aerosol cap was removed from her vagina. The patient developed urinary incontinence after removal of the foreign body. Subsequent work-up demonstrated the presence of a right ureterovaginal fistula. The patient underwent an abdominal ureteroneocystostomy. At one year follow up, the patient had fully recovered.
CONCLUSION: Ureterovaginal fistula following neglected vaginal foreign body is a serious condition. Early diagnosis, treatment of infection and proper surgical management can improve the outcome and decrease complications.