Journal Pre-proof

Management of unusual rectal foreign body – Case report and

literature review

Ana Elisa de Landa Moraes Teixeira Grossi, Juan Eduardo Rios

Rodriguez, Alexia Aina de Freitas Sousa, Danielle Alcântara
Barbosa, Victor Vinícius Monteiro Lins de Albuquerque, Frank
Pinheiro Pessoa Coelho de Macedo

PII: S2210-2612(22)00297-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2022.107051
Reference: IJSCR 107051

To appear in: International Journal of Surgery Case Reports

Received date: 14 February 2022

Revised date: 3 April 2022
Accepted date: 5 April 2022

Please cite this article as: A.E.d.L.M.T. Grossi, J.E.R. Rodriguez, A.A. de Freitas Sousa,
et al., Management of unusual rectal foreign body – Case report and literature review,
International Journal of Surgery Case Reports (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijscr.2022.107051

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IJS Publishing Group Ltd.

Journal Pre-proof

Title: Management of unusual rectal foreign body – Case report and literature review

Authors:

1
Ana Elisa de Landa Moraes Teixeira Grossi : [email protected]

2
Juan Eduardo Rios Rodriguez : [email protected]

3
Alexia Aina de Freitas Sousa : [email protected]

4
Danielle Alcântara Barbosa : [email protected]

4
Victor Vinícius Monteiro Lins de Albuquerque : [email protected]

5
Frank Pinheiro Pessoa Coelho de Macedo : [email protected]

Department(s) and afilliation(s):

of
1. General Surgery Resident, Nilton Lins Hospital Complex, Manaus, Brazil

ro
2. General Surgery Resident, Getúlio Vargas University Hospital (HUGV), Manaus, Brazil

3. Medical Student, Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), Manaus, Brazil

-p
4. Department of General Surgery, Getúlio Vargas University Hospital (HUGV), Manaus, Brazil
re
5. Digestive System Surgery service at Getúlio Vargas University Hospital (HUGV)

Corresponding Author: Ana Elisa de Landa Moraes Teixeira Grossi

lP

E-mail: [email protected]
Present address: Av. Professor Nilton Lins, 3259 – LT3 – Bairro Flores Manaus, AM
na

Tel: +55 92 98210-1164

ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof

Management of unusual rectal foreign body – Case report and literature review

Introduction: Retained rectal objects represent a rare complaint in the emergency room,
affecting mainly males between 20-40 years, with most objects of a sexual nature, but the
examiner must be aware of objects of an unusual nature. Presentation of Case: A 54-year-old
male patient arrives at the surgical emergency department, with a report of an accident with
the insertion of an object via the rectum, a gym dumbbell. Initially opted for transrectal object
removal, but with difficulties due to its position. Discussion: Retained rectal objects are a rare
complaint in the emergency department, but with an increasingly important occurrence in
recent years. Physical examination should include an assessment of the abdomen and digital

of
rectal examination. Imaging tests are mandatory for diagnosis, with abdominal and pelvis
radiography being the most requested. Although there is no consensus on the most

ro
appropriate removal technique, less invasive initial approaches are recommended, with
transanal removal with a 60-75% success rate under local anesthesia. The follow-up after the
-p
procedure depends on several factors, and in general, the patient should be kept under
observation and attention should be paid to significant changes in the evolution and
re
alterations in the imaging tests. Conclusion: The clinical history in these cases can be
lP

confusing, due to the patient's fear of reporting the complaints. Radiography is the best initial
test, and CT is reserved for cases of suspected complications. Whenever possible, perform the
extraction rectally.
na

KEYWORDS
ur

Rectum; Foreign Object; Foreign Bodies; General Surgery; Case Reports

Jo

HIGHLIGHTS

 Retained rectal objects are a rare complaint in the emergency department

 Less invasive initial approaches are recommended
 The follow-up after the procedure depends on several factors

INTRODUCTION
Journal Pre-proof

Insertion of foreign bodies via the rectum is a rare scenario in emergency care, with the sexual

practice being a common cause within the cases. Patient assessment is usually difficult due to

the patient's fear during the history, as he tends not to report what happened objectively [1].

Attention should be paid to unusual objects as they can cause complications, such as in cases of

perforation by glass objects, even though within the total cases, complications are rare [2]

Below, we present a case of management of a retained foreign body via the rectum. This case

follows 2020 SCARE guidelines for reporting cases in surgery [3].

of
PRESENTATION OF CASE

ro
-p
A 54-year-old male patient arrives by his means at the surgical emergency department of an
emergency care hospital, with an initial complaint of cramping abdominal pain in the
re
hypogastrium, right and left iliac fossae starting 24 hours before. He refers to nausea, vomiting in
lP

small volume, and stopping of evacuation for approximately 2 days. He denies weight loss,
dysphagia, anorexia, unusual food intake, haematoquezia or other symptoms. She denies
previous comorbidities or chronic use of medications, nor drug allergy. On physical examination,
na

the patient was clinically stable, but with a distended abdomen, with mild pain on diffuse
palpation, especially in the left iliac fossa and hypogastrium, with no signs of peritoneal irritation
ur

or palpable masses. Digital rectal examination was performed without evidence of palpable
Jo

masses, blood, or other findings, the patient was uncooperative during the examination. Vital
signs within the normal range (BP 130x90; FC 98; Sat 98%). Blood count and biochemical study
were requested, as well as radiography for acute abdomen.

On chest and abdominal radiography, absence of pneumoperitoneum, mild distension of the

descending, transverse, and ascending colon loops, and evidence of the presence of a foreign
body in the shape of an exercise dumbbell in an approximate location in the rectosigmoid
transition (Figure 1 and 2). Due to the patient's stable clinical condition, with no signs of
perforation, an initial rectal approach was chosen.

The patient was referred to the operating room, anesthesia was performed with an initial
spinal block and an initial anoscopy was performed, with partial visualization of the foreign
body, but without the possibility of extracting the object using grasping instruments. Opted for
Journal Pre-proof

manual extraction of the object without tweezers, with difficulties, but with complete removal
of the same (Figure 3). On procedure site review, no active bleeding, mucosal lesions, or other
complications.

The patient remained in post-anesthetic recovery for 4 hours and was referred to the general
surgery ward. A control abdomen radiograph was performed, without signs of
pneumoperitoneum after 12 hours of the procedure. He remained hospitalized for 3 days,
without changes in hematimetric values or other complications, with a medical discharge on
the 4th postoperative day.

DISCUSSION

of
Retained rectal objects are a rare complaint in the emergency department, but an increasingly

ro
important occurrence in recent years. A Caribbean study conducted in hospitals over 5 years
revealed an incidence of approximately 0.15 cases per 100,000 population/year, but exact
-p
frequency data is not known [4]. Despite being a problem that affects both genders, in the
re
literature consulted there is a predominance of males, at a ratio of 28:1 to females, more
specifically white men between 20-40 years old, having practices of sexual gratification. as the
lP

greatest motivation [5,6]. A huge variety of rectal objects have been described, with a greater
predominance of those of a sexual nature, followed by glass objects, which should be handled
na

with greater care due to their fragility and risk of injury if broken [1]. The case in question
draws attention due to the particular nature of the object, a metallic dumbbell of about 20 cm
and approximately 2 kilos or 4,4 pounds.
ur

Generally, most patients, because of embarrassment, only present for medical attention after
Jo

several unsuccessful attempts to remove the object alone, resulting in an average calculated
delay of 1.4 days to seek help [4]. Many of them have nonspecific complaints of lower
abdominal pain, anorectal pain, constipation, or bleeding, so it is up to the examiner to
maintain high suspicion and take a careful approach to reach the diagnosis. A good history
should evaluate the nature of the inserted object, as well as the way of insertion, to decide the
best way of removal, taking into account the material, size, and location of the object. [6]
Physical examination should include inspection, palpation, and abdominal auscultation to
evaluate transabdominal palpable objects and rule out signs of peritonitis. Although the digital
rectal examination is essential for diagnosis, as it provides data on the presence, size, and
location of the object, in addition to assessing the state of the anal sphincter, an abdominal
radiograph should be performed before its performance to rule out the presence of sharps or
Journal Pre-proof

glass objects in the rectum, thus avoiding secondary injuries to the patient and the examiner
[7,8]

Imaging tests are mandatory to confirm the diagnosis, with anteroposterior and lateral
radiographs of the abdomen and pelvis being the most commonly requested to confirm the
presence, number, and location of rectal objects, in addition to checking for the presence of
free air. Chest X-ray should be considered in the initial evaluation to exclude
pneumoperitoneum. Other imaging tests such as non-contrast computed tomography are
important in the evaluation of non-opaque rectal objects, as well as assisting in suspected
cases of intestinal perforation.[5]. Laboratory tests are not essential in the initial evaluation
unless there are signs of peritonitis and preoperative preparation is required [8]. In

of
radiographic examinations performed in our patient, findings of distention of the descending,
transverse, and ascending colon loops, with the presence of a radiopaque dumbbell-shaped

ro
foreign body in the rectosigmoid transition, but without signs of pneumoperitoneum or
-p
perforation

Although there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate removal technique, less
re
invasive initial approaches are recommended. Studies suggest a 60-75% success rate for
lP

transanal extractions under local anesthesia [9,10]. Several techniques can be used if the
patient is stable, with a bimanual extraction attempt being initially performed with the patient
in the lithotomy position, and if the patient is calm, collaborative, and tolerates the procedure
na

without the need for sedation, there is an advantage in asking to be performing the Valsalva
maneuver actively at the correct time, other techniques include the use of forceps and finally
ur

endoscopic assistance [11,12]. Emergency surgical approach through laparotomy or

exploratory laparoscopy should be reserved for cases of failure or for patients presenting with
Jo

instability, fever, severe pain, or signs of peritoneal irritation that may indicate perforation
[9,6,13]. In the case of the patient, despite the location of the object being considered high,
manual transanal extraction was chosen, inserting the surgeon's forearm with some difficulty,
without post-extraction complications.

Postoperative follow-up depends on several factors, from the patient's clinical condition,
associated comorbidities, presence or absence of problems due to delay in seeking care, and
possible trauma-related to removal [7,14]. Serial imaging tests for control should be ordered to
evaluate signs of peritonitis and perforation, when available, request endoscopic exams such
as colonoscopy or rectosigmoidoscopy to rule out mucosal injuries, as well as evaluate anal
sphincter injuries that could lead to certain degrees of fecal incontinence, with subsequent
need for outpatient follow-up. The patient should be kept under observation and attention
Journal Pre-proof

should be paid to significant changes in the evolution, such as the occurrence of fever,
vomiting, and changes in imaging tests, and surgical evaluation should be considered in cases
of need. [15,16, 7]. In the case presented, the patient underwent imaging without signs of
pneumoperitoneum in the first 12 hours, remained hospitalized for 3 days, and progressed
without complications, being discharged on the 4th postoperative day.

CONCLUSION
Despite being a rare complaint in the routine of emergency and having no defined incidence,
cases of rectal foreign bodies have increasing numbers, mainly due to auto-erotic causes. The
clinical history can be confusing, due to the patient's fear of reporting the complaints. Physical

of
examination should be the standard for an obstructive acute abdomen, but pay attention to

ro
cases of piercing objects that could injure the examiner. Radiography is the best initial test,
and CT is reserved for cases of suspected complications. Whenever possible, perform rectal
-p
extraction, except when there is suspicion of perforation or impossibility of rectal evaluation
re

PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW

lP

Not commissioned, externally peer-reviewed

na

REFERENCES
ur

[1] M. Ploner, A. Gardetto, F. Ploner, M. Scharl, S. Shoap, H.C. Bäcker, Foreign rectal body -
Jo

Systematic review and meta-analysis., Acta Gastroenterol. Belg. 83 (2020) 61–65.

[2] E. Klein, M. Bressler, S. Nadler, M. Shayowitz, S. Lapin, Rectal foreign body of a shattered glass

bottle; Case report of unexpected late post-operative hemorrhage managed transanally., Int. J.

Surg. Case Rep. 72 (2020) 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2020.05.060.

[3] R.A. Agha, T. Franchi, C. Sohrabi, G. Mathew, A. Kerwan, The SCARE 2020 Guideline: Updating

Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines., Int. J. Surg. 84 (2020) 226–230.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.10.034.
Journal Pre-proof

[4] S.O. Cawich, D.A. Thomas, F. Mohammed, N.J. Bobb, D. Williams, V. Naraynsingh, A

Management Algorithm for Retained Rectal Foreign Bodies., Am. J. Mens. Health. 11 (2017) 684–

692. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988316680929.

[5] A.A. Ayantunde, Approach to the diagnosis and management of retained rectal foreign

bodies: clinical update., Tech. Coloproctol. 17 (2013) 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-

012-0899-1.

[6] K.J. Lim, J.S. Kim, B.G. Kim, S.M. Park, J.-S. Ji, B.-W. Kim, H. Choi, Removal of Rectal Foreign

Bodies Using Tenaculum Forceps Under Endoscopic Assistance., Intest. Res. 13 (2015) 355–359.

of
https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2015.13.4.355.

ro
[7] A. Coskun, N. Erkan, S. Yakan, M. Yıldirim, F. Cengiz, Management of rectal foreign bodies.,
-p
World J. Emerg. Surg. 8 (2013) 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-8-11.

[8] H. Ye, S. Huang, Q. Zhou, J. Yu, C. Xi, L. Cao, P. Wang, Z. Gong, Migration of a foreign body to
re
the rectum: A case report and literature review., Medicine (Baltimore). 97 (2018) e11512.
lP

https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011512.

[9] G.O. Ologun, Y. Stevenson, B. Cagir, P. Granet, P. McPhail, Successful Retrieval of a Retained
na

Rectal Foreign Body in the Emergency Department., Cureus. 10 (2018) e2025.

ur

https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2025.

[10] K.G. Cologne, G.T. Ault, Rectal foreign bodies: what is the current standard?, Clin. Colon
Jo

Rectal Surg. 25 (2012) 214–218. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1329392.

[11] S. Nesemann, K.A. Hubbard, M.I. Siddiqui, W.G. Fernandez, Rectal Foreign Body Removal in

the Emergency Department: A Case Report., Clin. Pract. Cases Emerg. Med. 4 (2020) 450–453.

https://doi.org/10.5811/cpcem.2020.7.47237.

[12] B. Desai, Visual diagnosis: Rectal foreign body: A primer for emergency physicians., Int. J.

Emerg. Med. 4 (2011) 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/1865-1380-4-73.

[13] G. Kasotakis, L. Roediger, S. Mittal, Rectal foreign bodies: A case report and review of the

literature., Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 3 (2012) 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2011.11.007.

Journal Pre-proof

[14] J.E. Goldberg, S.R. Steele, Rectal foreign bodies., Surg. Clin. North Am. 90 (2010) 173–84,

Table of Contents. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2009.10.004.

[15] Y. Shaban, A. Elkbuli, V. Ovakimyan, R. Wobing, D. Boneva, M. McKenney, S. Hai, Rectal

foreign body causing perforation: Case report and literature review., Ann. Med. Surg. 47 (2019)

66–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2019.10.005.

[16] P. Kumar, S. Rehman, A.K.S. Rana, Approach to rectal foreign body: an unusual

presentation., BMJ Case Rep. 2018 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2018-224253.

INFORMED CONSENT

of
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case

ro
report and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review
-p
by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal on request.
re
lP

FUNDINGS
na

No fundings available
ur

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jo

This report does not present conflicts of interest by the authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Ana Elisa, Juan Rodriguez and Alexia Aina contributions to conception, design,

collected the patient details and wrote the paper. Ana Elisa, Danielle Barbosa and

Frank Pinheiro made contributions to patient management. Victor Lins, Ana Elisa and

Danielle Barbosa critically revised the article. All authors read and approved the final

manuscript.
Journal Pre-proof

RESEARCH REGISTRATION

N/A

GUARANTOR

Ana Elisa de Landa Moraes Teixeira Grossi

FIGURES

of
Figure 1. Pelvic radiography (antero posterior view) showing a foreign body (dumbbell)

ro
approximately in rectosigmoid transition

Figure 2. Pelvic radiograph (lateral view) showing a foreign body (dumbbell).

-p
Figure 3. dumbbell removed from the rectum compared to a chenron forceps 24 cm
re

International Journal of Surgery Case Reports

lP

The following information is required for submission. Please note that failure to respond to
na

these questions/statements will mean your submission will be returned. If you have nothing to
ur

declare in any of these categories, then this should be stated.

Jo

Please state any conflicts of interest

All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or

organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential

conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid

expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.

We do not have any conflicts of interests

Please state any sources of funding for your research

Journal Pre-proof

All sources of funding should be declared as an acknowledgement at the end of the text.

Authors should declare the role of study sponsors, if any, in the collection, analysis and

interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the

manuscript for publication. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, the authors should

so state.

We do not have any funding source, this manuscript is just a case report, not a research

Ethical Approval

of
Research studies involving patients require ethical approval. Please state whether approval or

ro
exemption has been given, name the relevant ethics committee and the state the reference

number for their judgement. Please give a statement regarding ethnical approval that will be
-p
included in the publication of your article, if the study is exempt from ethnical approval in your
re
institution please state this.
lP

As the manuscript is not a research study, we only have the patient consent for writing and

others forms of publication. Also, the ethical approval for this case reports has been
na

exempted by our institution

ur

Consent
Jo

Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and fully informed written

consent which should be documented in the paper.

Authors must obtain written and signed consent to publish a case report from the patient (or,

where applicable, the patient's guardian or next of kin) prior to submission. We ask Authors to

confirm as part of the submission process that such consent has been obtained, and the

manuscript must include a statement to this effect in a consent section at the end of the

manuscript, as follows: "Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for
Journal Pre-proof

publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is

available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal on request”.

Patients have a right to privacy. Patients’ and volunteers' names, initials, or hospital numbers

should not be used. Images of patients or volunteers should not be used unless the

information is essential for scientific purposes and explicit permission has been given as part

of the consent. If such consent is made subject to any conditions, the Editor in Chief must be

made aware of all such conditions.

of
Even where consent has been given, identifying details should be omitted if they are not

ro
essential. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic

pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning
-p
and editors should so note.
re
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report
lP

and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the

Editor-in-Chief of this journal on request.

na

Author contribution
ur

Please specify the contribution of each author to the paper, e.g. study concept or design, data
Jo

collection, data analysis or interpretation, writing the paper, others, who have contributed in

other ways, should be listed as contributors.

Ana Elisa, Juan Rodriguez and Alexia Aina contributions to conception, design, collected the patient

details and wrote the paper. Ana Elisa, Danielle Barbosa and Frank Pinheiro made contributions to

patient management. Victor Lins, Ana Elisa and Danielle Barbosa critically revised the article. All

authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Registration of Research Studies

Journal Pre-proof

In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki 2013, the Editors of IJS Case Reports require

that reports that are ‘First in Man’ studies should be registered prospectively and failing that

retrospectively. There are many places to register your First in Man case report:

• Clinicaltrials.gov – for all human studies – free

• Chinese Clinical Trial Registry chictr.org.cn – for all human studies - free
• Researchregistry.com – for all human studies – charge
• ISRCTN.com – for all human studies – charge
• There are many national registries approved by the UN that can be found here

Elsevier does not support or endorse any registry.

of
The manuscript is a case report, not considered a formal research involving participants

ro
Guarantor
-p
The Guarantor is the one or more people who accept full responsibility for the work and/or the

conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish
re

Ana Elisa de Landa Moraes

lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3