Violence-related periorbital trauma with a retained foreign body: a case report
© Dell’Aversana et al. 2016
Received: 14 April 2015
Accepted: 1 December 2015
Published: 20 January 2016
Orbital fracture usually occurs as a result of blunt orbital and facial trauma and may involve ocular injuries. International studies on orbital floor fracture show several differences in epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, surgical treatment modalities, and complication rates; therefore, any comparison should be made with caution. Here we describe an unusual case involving a 19-year-old man with violence-related periorbital trauma, wherein a foreign body (a plastic pen cap) traversed the median wall of the maxillary sinus and penetrated the lower turbinate.
A 19-year-old Caucasian man was referred to our department with localized pain and swelling in the left suborbital region following a physical fight in May 2014. A clinical examination revealed no abnormalities in his eyeballs or eye movement, palpation of the orbital contour revealed no fractures, and ophthalmological evaluation showed no evidence of diplopia. A computed tomography scan revealed fractures in the left orbital floor, periorbital tissue herniation without muscular entrapment and left maxillary hemosinus were observed. A hypodense soft tissue mass was lodged in the left orbital floor, which extended to the median wall of the maxillary sinus and penetrated the left lower turbinate. Surgical exploration of the foreign body was conducted, revealing the foreign body to be a pen cap.
History or clinical examination alone may be inadequate to raise the suspicion of a retained periorbital foreign body in a situation of orbital region trauma. Computed tomography is important for the evaluation of periorbital injuries, especially because it could reveal the presence of a foreign body. Periorbital foreign bodies can be observed distinctly on computed tomography, which remains the most sensitive study and should be the first imaging modality in such cases.
KeywordsOrbital floor fracture Computed tomography Foreign body Blunt trauma Hemosinus
Orbital fracture usually occurs as a result of blunt orbital and facial trauma and may involve ocular injuries [1, 2]. Young adults and teenagers are predominantly affected , with motor vehicle accidents being the leading cause, followed by falls and sports injuries [1–4]. More recent studies have identified assault as the main cause . In general, patients exhibit polytrauma and require multidisciplinary treatment involving various medical specialties such as ophthalmology, otorhinolaryngology, neurosurgery, and plastic surgery for the restoration of function and aesthetics. International studies on orbital floor fracture show several differences in epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, surgical treatment modalities, and complication rates; therefore, any comparison should be made with caution . Here we describe an unusual case involving a 19-year-old man with violence-related periorbital trauma, wherein a foreign body (a plastic pen cap) traversed the median wall of the maxillary sinus and penetrated the lower turbinate. Our patient was hospitalized for evaluation and removal of the foreign body to prevent severe infection. This case is rare because it demonstrates how in such situations orbital trauma could be misdiagnosed or not properly approached due to incorrect evaluation.
Pure orbital floor fractures account for approximately 67–84 % of all orbital trauma cases [1, 3]. Occasionally, history or clinical examination alone may be inadequate to raise the suspicion of a retained periorbital foreign body. Therefore, CT is important for the evaluation of periorbital injuries . The clinical course and indications for removal of the periorbital foreign body depend on a variety of factors, such as its position (near vital structures), chemical structure (many metals and plastic materials may be inert, whereas wood is associated with a higher incidence of complications), potentially infectious nature, or clinical findings (displacement or damage to vital anatomical structures and ophthalmological evaluation findings) [4, 8]. In some periorbital trauma the foreign body is dislocated in the maxillary sinus; many authors suggested its removal to prevent future infections [9, 10]. However, infection is not a certain outcome since sinuses have been observed to be healthy despite the inclusion of foreign materials . The sinus can remain asymptomatic for several months before an acute infection develops. The removal of the foreign body is considered necessary because of peculiarities of the topographic anatomy of the maxillary sinus. The close proximity of the external posterior wall to the pterygopalatine fossa lodging the main trunk of the second division of the trigeminal nerve (the maxillary nerve), maxillary artery, and venos plexus connected with the orbit and cavernous sinus of the dura mater may promote the spread of pathology from the maxillary sinus to this region . The superior wall of the maxillary sinus separates it from the orbit. On the surface of the wall lies a canal (sometimes a semicanal), which opens into the maxillary cavity and contains the maxillary nerve and vessels. Therefore, pathological conditions of the sinus may affect this vascular-nerve bundle or spread into the orbit . Also the trigemino-cardiac reflex (TCR) reported by some authors is considered an indication for the removal of the intraorbital foreign body [13, 14]. Ophthalmological findings include the presence of double vision (Hess–Lancaster evaluation), enophthalmos/hypoglobus, and conjunctival ecchymosis .
With regard to radiological evaluation, CT is ideal for evaluating fractures of the orbital walls and the integrity of the adjacent sinuses . Three-dimensional reconstruction after image acquisition allows categorization of the size and shape of fracture, thus aiding in surgical treatment planning . Periorbital foreign bodies can be distinctly observed on CT, which remains the most sensitive study and should be the first imaging modality in such cases [16, 17]. We initially suspected a periorbital surface injury in our patient, and we considered CT to verify our suspicion of an orbital floor fracture, not to evaluate the potential presence of a periorbital foreign body. We were surprised to observe that a sizeable periorbital foreign body such as a plastic pen cap could find its way into the sinus through a small entry site, without showing major clinical manifestations such as sinusitis or sinus infection. The previous surgical treatment (orbital frame sutures) did not consider radiological findings; therefore, it was inadequate. Generally, the indications for surgical removal of foreign bodies include neurological compromise, mechanical restriction of ocular movements, development of acute or chronic infection, or chronic suppurative reactions, such as those observed with copper foreign bodies . Removal of foreign bodies located close to the apex is also generally discouraged, because the risk of collateral damage far outweighs the benefits . In our patient, surgical removal was considered to prevent sinus and periorbital infections.
In conclusion, the findings from this case imply that in patients with major or minor periocular or ocular surface injury, clinical investigations should rely less on history, which may be misleading, and more on imaging studies such as CT, which allow for accurate diagnosis and surgical planning for the resolution of a traumatic process secondary to a retained foreign body that would remain undetected on clinical examination alone.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Tong L, Bauer RJ, Buchman SR. A current 10-year retrospective survey of 199 surgically treated orbital floor fractures in a nonurban tertiary care center. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:612–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Exadaktylos AK, Sclabas GM, Smolka K, Rahal A, Andres RH, Zimmermann H, et al. The value of computed tomographic scanning in the diagnosis and management of orbital fractures associated with head trauma: a prospective, consecutive study at a level I trauma center. J Trauma. 2005;58:336–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Baumann A, Burggasser G, Gauss N, Ewers R. Orbital floor reconstruction with an alloplastic resorbable polydioxanone sheet. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;31:367–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cole P, Boyd V, Banerji S, Hollier Jr LH. Comprehensive management of orbital fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:57S–63S.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kontio R, Suuronen R, Ponkkonen H, Lindqvist C, Laine P. Have the causes of maxillofacial fractures changed over the last 16 years in Finland? An epidemiological study of 725 fractures. Dent Traumatol. 2005;21:14–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cossman JP, Morrison CS, Taylor HO, Salter AB, Klinge PM, Sullivan SR. Traumatic orbital roof fractures: interdisciplinary evaluation and management. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:335e–43e.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sammartino G, Trosino O, di Lauro AE, Amato M, Cioffi A. Use of piezosurgery device in management of surgical dental implant complication: a case report. Implant Dent. 2011;20:e1–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Detorakis ET, Drositis I, Drakonaki E, Panagiotaki E, Deville J. Pneumocephalus and presumed meningitis following inconspicuous penetrating periocular trauma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2004;82:603–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Krishnan S, Sharma R. Iatrogenically induced foreign body of the maxillary sinus and its surgical management: a unique situation. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24:283–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Oliveira RS, Costa RO, Carvalho Neto LG, Araújo FF. Aplicação da técnica cirúrgica de Caldwell-Luc para remoção de corpo estranho do seio maxilar: relato de caso. J Health Sci Inst. 2010;28:318–20.Google Scholar
- Mariano RC, Melo WM, Mariano LCF. Introdução acidental de terceiro molar superior em seio maxilar. Revista de Odontologia da Universidade Cidade de São Paulo. 2006;16:167–70.Google Scholar
- Ugincius P, Kubilius R, Gervickas A, Vaitkus S. Chronic odontogenic maxillary sinusitis Stomatologija. Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal. 2006;8:44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schaller BJ, Buchfelder M. Delayed trigeminocardiac reflex induced by an intraorbital foreign body. Ophthalmologica. 2006;220:348.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chowdhury T, Cappellani RB, Schaller B. Chronic trigemino-cardiac reflex in patient with orbital floor fracture: role of surgery and first description. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2014;26:91–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fulcher TP, Mcnab AA, Sullivan TJ. Clinical features and management of intraorbital foreign bodies. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:494–500.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Caranci F, Cicala D, Cappabianca S, Briganti F, Brunese L, Fonio P. Orbital fractures: role of imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2012;33:385–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nagae LM, Katowitz WR, Bilaniuk LT, Anninger WV, Pollock AN. Radiological detection of intraorbital wooden foreign bodies. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011;27:895–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Aldekhayel S, Aljaaly H, Fouda-Neel O, Shararah AW, Zaid WS, Gilardino M. Evolving trends in the management of orbital floor fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25:258–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kang SJ, Jeon SP. Surgical treatment of periorbital foreign body. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:e603–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar