Endoscopic retrieval of ingested magnets in children and role of magnetic retrievers

Background Various high-powered magnetic toy sets constitute a major hazard as the small magnets can be easily swallowed or aspirated by young children. Multiple ingested magnets or the ingestion of a magnet with another metallic object can pose a serious threat as this may lead to bowel perforation, fistulation, intestinal volvulus, bowel obstruction and death. Main body Retrieval of ingested magnets from the stomach is routinely performed endoscopically but can become a painstaking quest involving many tedious attempts to secure the magnet(s). Historically, pre-routine endoscopy, magnetic retrievers were used under fluoroscopic control for the removal of metallic objects in the stomach. With the advent of endoscopic retrieval instruments, they fell out of favour and are no longer readily available on the market. Despite this, conventional endoscopic instruments are likely to be less effective than endoscopic-assisted magnetic retrievers due to confounding weak bonds which form between the metal retrieval device and the magnet. Preoperative testing, and selection of the retrieval instrument with the strongest coupling effect with a magnet, might be beneficial. A simple, endoscopic-assisted magnetic retriever created in theatre can allow for more effective, time-efficient and safe removal of ingested magnets under direct vision. Conclusion Urgent removal of multiple ingested magnets or a single ingested magnet coupled with another ingested metallic object should be highlighted. Stricter implementation of a widespread ban over loose magnetic toys is needed. Standardised protocols for the surgical management of ingested magnets should be available in every hospital.

Transcystic Removal of Common Bile Duct Stones in Surgically Altered Anatomy (Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass)

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered anatomy can be technically challenging. Various techniques have been described; however, the technical success rate depends on the type of reconstruction, length of the afferent limb, access to the papilla, availability of accessories, and adequate expertise. We describe successful transcystic removal of common bile duct stones in a patient with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using cholangioscope and SpyGlass retrieval device at the time of cholecystectomy.

Comparison of a magnetic retrieval device vs. flexible cystoscopy for removal of ureteral stents in renal transplant patients: A randomized controlled trial

Introduction: Placement of a ureteral stent at the time of renal transplantation can reduce complications when compared to non-stented anastomoses. Removal by flexible cystoscopy can be associated with discomfort, risk for infection, and high costs. New magnetic stents offer a means of bypassing cystoscopy by use of a magnetic retrieval device. Our objective was to compare clinical and cost-related outcomes of conventional and magnetic stents in patients undergoing deceased donor renal transplantation. Methods: Patients were randomized to receive either a conventional or a Black-Star® magnetic stent. Clinical, procedural, and cost outcomes were assessed, and the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) was administered with the stent in situ and after stent removal. All variables were compared between groups. Results: Forty-one patients were randomized to conventional (n=19) or Black-Star (n=22) stent. The total time for stent removal under cystoscopy was significantly longer compared to Black-Star removal (6.67±2.47 and 4.80±2.21 minutes, respectively; p=0.019). No differences were found in the USSQ domains between groups. Rates of urinary tract infections and surgical complications between groups were similar. Stent removal was well-tolerated in both groups. Black-Star stent use resulted in a cost savings of $304.02 Canadian dollars (CAD) per case. Conclusions: USSQ scores suggest that stent removal with the Black-Star magnetic stent is as equally well-tolerated as flexible cystoscopy by renal transplant patients. Black-Star stent removal was significantly faster than conventional stents. No differences in discomfort, infection rate, or complication rate were found. Use of the Black-Star stent resulted in an estimated annual savings of $27 360 CAD at our centre.

When ventriculoatrial shunt gets lost

Ventriculoatrial shunt is a medical device used to treat chronic hydrocephalus, with a distal catheter inserted in the internal jugular vein using the Seldinger technique. We report the case of a 40-year-old male with disconnection and migration of the distal catheter in the pulmonary arteries 3 years after its implantation, revealed by the recurrence of Hakim–Adams syndrome. The migrated catheter was urgently extracted using an endovascular procedure with a pigtail catheter and a lasso snare retrieval device. The patient benefited from the implantation of a contralateral ventriculoperitoneal shunt. The patient’s case highlights that interventional radiology should be consulted to remove migrated endovascular foreign material, in the absence of cardiac or pulmonary complications.

A novel technique for dacryocystorhinostomy tube insertion

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this paper is to describe a simple and safer silicone tube insertion technique in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.MATERIAL AND METHODS. In our technique, steel wire is inserted into a rigid suction tube (3 mm in diameter) immediately after the medial wall of the sac under endoscopic view. The duration of retrieving the wire from the sac and out of the nasal passage, the number of mucosal lacerations and bleeding were compared with conventional methods such as using retrieval device or forceps.RESULTS. The duration of retrieving the wire from the sac and out of the nasal passage and mucosal laceration were statistically reduced (P<0.05) in this novel technique when compared with other methods.CONCLUSION. Sheltering the sharp end of the wire with a suction cannula is a safe and easy method without using any additional tools

Comparison of Stone Retrieval Basket, Stone Cone and Holmium Laser: Which One Is Better in Retropulsion and Stone-Free Status for Patients with Upper Ureteral Calculi?

Introduction: Transurethral lithotripsy (TUL) is an appropriate treatment for ureteral stones and is usually used for stones in the middle and lower part of the ureter. Different devices such as the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone exist to prevent any fragments from retropulsion during TUL. The present study aims to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from September 2016 to January 2018 comparing various TUL methods in 88 subjects with proximal ureteral calculi. The study participants were divided into 4 matched groups. The first one included 20 patients undergoing TUL with no device (group 1), the second group included 22 patients undergoing TUL while using the stone retrieval basket, the third group included 18 patients undergoing TUL while utilizing the stone cone and the fourth group included 28 patients undergoing TUL while using the Hol-YAG laser. Results: A residual stone ≥3 mm was recorded in 15.9% of the patients. The stone free rate was seen in 100%, 90.9, 83.3%, and 55% of the Holmium laser group, the retrieval basket group, the stone cone group and the no device group respectively (P=0.001). The lowest rate of surgery complications including ureteral perforation, post-operative fever, and mucosal damage between the 4 groups (P=0.003) and the highest time of surgery (P=0.001) belonged to the laser group. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone. Conclusion: We can safely conclude that lasers significantly help to prevent stone migration during TUL. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was significantly better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone.