非飞弹,经眼眶,颅内玻璃碎片的移除:说明性病例。

Aaron Miller, Matheus P Pereira, Jeffrey Wessell, Isaiah Miller, Guilherme Porto
{"title":"非飞弹,经眼眶,颅内玻璃碎片的移除:说明性病例。","authors":"Aaron Miller, Matheus P Pereira, Jeffrey Wessell, Isaiah Miller, Guilherme Porto","doi":"10.3171/CASE24851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of nonmissile penetrating head injuries is not well established given the heterogeneity of injuries described. The authors describe the management of a patient who presented to their institution along with a review of the literature.</p><p><strong>Observations: </strong>The glass shard was removed in the operating room with the ophthalmology team without complication. A diagnostic cerebral angiogram was also obtained in an urgent and delayed fashion. A total of 53 studies with 90 patients were included. The mean age was 27 years, and 86% of subjects were male. The frontal region violated via metal spike was the most common location of injury. Prophylactic antibiotics and antiepileptic drugs were administered in 68% and 24%, respectively. Craniotomy for removal was performed in 82% of cases and infection occurred in 6%.</p><p><strong>Lessons: </strong>Emergency CT angiography should be obtained when concern for vascular injury based on trajectory or significant depth of penetration exists. Immediate administration of prophylactic antibiotics and AEDs should be completed. Diagnostic angiography for suspicion of vessel injury in an urgent and delayed fashion should be performed. Removal of intracranial objects should only occur in the operating room. Immediate postoperative CT should be utilized to rule out worsening of intracranial injury. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24851.</p>","PeriodicalId":94098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons","volume":"9 26","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210071/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Removal of a nonmissile, transorbital, intracranial glass shard: illustrative case.\",\"authors\":\"Aaron Miller, Matheus P Pereira, Jeffrey Wessell, Isaiah Miller, Guilherme Porto\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/CASE24851\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of nonmissile penetrating head injuries is not well established given the heterogeneity of injuries described. The authors describe the management of a patient who presented to their institution along with a review of the literature.</p><p><strong>Observations: </strong>The glass shard was removed in the operating room with the ophthalmology team without complication. A diagnostic cerebral angiogram was also obtained in an urgent and delayed fashion. A total of 53 studies with 90 patients were included. The mean age was 27 years, and 86% of subjects were male. The frontal region violated via metal spike was the most common location of injury. Prophylactic antibiotics and antiepileptic drugs were administered in 68% and 24%, respectively. Craniotomy for removal was performed in 82% of cases and infection occurred in 6%.</p><p><strong>Lessons: </strong>Emergency CT angiography should be obtained when concern for vascular injury based on trajectory or significant depth of penetration exists. Immediate administration of prophylactic antibiotics and AEDs should be completed. Diagnostic angiography for suspicion of vessel injury in an urgent and delayed fashion should be performed. Removal of intracranial objects should only occur in the operating room. Immediate postoperative CT should be utilized to rule out worsening of intracranial injury. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24851.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons\",\"volume\":\"9 26\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210071/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3171/CASE24851\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/CASE24851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:鉴于所描述的损伤的异质性,非导弹穿透性头部损伤的处理尚未很好地建立。作者描述了一个病人的管理谁提出了他们的机构连同文献综述。观察:玻璃片在眼科团队的指导下在手术室取出,无并发症。诊断性脑血管造影也得到了紧急和延迟的方式。共纳入53项研究,共纳入90例患者。平均年龄为27岁,86%的受试者为男性。经金属钉侵犯的额叶区域是最常见的损伤部位。预防性抗生素和抗癫痫药物分别占68%和24%。82%的病例行开颅手术,6%的病例发生感染。经验教训:当基于轨迹或明显穿透深度考虑血管损伤时,应进行急诊CT血管造影。应立即给予预防性抗生素和aed。诊断性血管造影的怀疑血管损伤在紧急和延迟的方式应进行。颅内物体的移除只能在手术室进行。术后立即行CT检查,排除颅内损伤加重的可能。https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24851。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Removal of a nonmissile, transorbital, intracranial glass shard: illustrative case.

Background: The management of nonmissile penetrating head injuries is not well established given the heterogeneity of injuries described. The authors describe the management of a patient who presented to their institution along with a review of the literature.

Observations: The glass shard was removed in the operating room with the ophthalmology team without complication. A diagnostic cerebral angiogram was also obtained in an urgent and delayed fashion. A total of 53 studies with 90 patients were included. The mean age was 27 years, and 86% of subjects were male. The frontal region violated via metal spike was the most common location of injury. Prophylactic antibiotics and antiepileptic drugs were administered in 68% and 24%, respectively. Craniotomy for removal was performed in 82% of cases and infection occurred in 6%.

Lessons: Emergency CT angiography should be obtained when concern for vascular injury based on trajectory or significant depth of penetration exists. Immediate administration of prophylactic antibiotics and AEDs should be completed. Diagnostic angiography for suspicion of vessel injury in an urgent and delayed fashion should be performed. Removal of intracranial objects should only occur in the operating room. Immediate postoperative CT should be utilized to rule out worsening of intracranial injury. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24851.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信