Table 1 Comparison of different penetrating foreign body cases
From: Peculiar penetrating oropharyngeal foreign body accident: a case report and review of literatures
Our case report | Edem et al. [3] | Gupta et al. [9] | Lei et al. [10] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Demographic factors | 7 years/male/rural region | 4 years/female/rural region | 10 years/male/urban | 2 years/male/ urban |
Mechanism of trauma | Trauma to head from behind with FB inside oral cavity | Fall on the floor with the FB in oral cavity | Fighting in classroom | Fall with FB in oral cavity |
Type of foreign body | Long hook-shaped metallic rod | Screw driver (straight metallic part) | Plastic ball pen cap | Chopstick with corncob |
Size of foreign body | 30 cm | 8.5 cm | 2–3 cm | - |
Anatomical parts involved | Oral cavity and oropharynx (tongue base) | Hard palate, nasopharynx | Pterygomandibular space | Hard palate, nasopharynx, skull base |
Radiological findings | Hook-shaped metallic FB over the dorsal surface of the tongue, penetrating tongue base with intraglossal component of 2.5 cm in CT scan | Straight metallic FB penetrating the hard palate, entered the nasopharynx impinging the skull base in X-ray | Strange cylindrical FB in left retromolar area in MRI scan | Chopstick penetrating hard palate, crossing the nasopharynx and impinging into the skull base |
Difficulties in management | Unusual shape and entry point in hidden area of oropharynx | Difficulty in bag and mask ventilation and intubation | Delayed presentation of 3.5 months without direct history of FB | Potential airway compromise by the corncob |