Unintentionally retained pelvic drainage tube found on Imaging; A case report
| dc.contributor.author | Dzefi-Tettey, K. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Edzie, E.K.M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Brakohiapa, E.K.K. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Nyamuame, E.S.A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Agyeman, N.Y.F. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Coleman, J. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-20T10:09:00Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-03-20T10:09:00Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.description | Research Article | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | a b s t r a c t A retained drainage tube after surgery is rare and patients may be asymptomatic if it occurs. The presence of a retained drainage tube may be first recognized on imaging and this re- quires a high index of suspicion by radiologists. In this case report, we described an incidental finding of an asymptomatic retained fractured drainage tube in the pelvis of a 32-year-old female on ultrasonography for renal evaluation. This highlighted the need for radiologists to have a high index of suspicion when performing ultrasonography on postoperative patients and surgeons should be meticulous when removing drainage tubes postsurgery. The possibility of a foreign body should be considered when unfamiliar findings are encountered on imaging. Surgeons should inspect drainage tubes after removal to ensure the full length of the tube is removed. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.other | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radcr.2022.07.049 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh:8080/handle/123456789/38791 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Washington. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Retained drainage tube | en_US |
| dc.subject | Laparotomy | en_US |
| dc.subject | Ultrasonography | en_US |
| dc.subject | Computed tomography scan | en_US |
| dc.subject | Pelvis | en_US |
| dc.title | Unintentionally retained pelvic drainage tube found on Imaging; A case report | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |