Case report
Diagnostic dilemmas due to fish bone ingestion: Case report & literature review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.06.034Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Highlights

  • Pre-operative diagnosis of fish bone perforation of the bowel is difficult.

  • It usually mimics common abdominal pathology.

  • A low threshold must be maintained to perform a diagnostic laparoscopy.

Abstract

Introduction

The diagnosis of abdominal complications due to fish bone ingestion is particularly difficult as the presentation may mimic common abdominal pathologies.

Presentation of case

65 year-old male presented with a two day history of right iliac fossa pain. He denied any nausea and vomiting. He had no systemic systems including fever, change in bowel habit. He had tenderness and guarding localized to the right iliac fossa. He had raised inflammatory markers. A CT scan of the abdomen was performed which showed fat standing in proximity to the terminal ileum, with the appearance of Crohn’s disease. The clinical picture did not match the imaging and so the patient underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy. Findings included an acutely inflamed terminal ileum. A foreign body was identified piercing through at the small bowel wall at the terminal ileum. The foreign body was removed and revealed a fish bone. Intracorporeal sutures were inserted at the site of the microperforation. The patient was discharged well two days post operatively.

Discussion

Fish bone perforation is not a common cause of gastrointestinal perforation. Unfortunately the history is often non-specific and these people can be misdiagnosed with acute appendicitis & other pathologies. CT scans can be useful to aid diagnostics. It is not however fully sensitive in detecting complications arising from fishbone ingestion.

Conclusion

Management therefore, should be based taking into account primarily the clinical picture & may necessitate diagnostic laparoscopy.

Cited by (0)