ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Case Report: an unusual case of a penetrating intracranial metallic foreign body removed via surgery.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A curious case of unsuspected intracranial metallic splinter with complications.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and importance: Intracranial foreign bodies resulting from criminal assaults that cause penetrating trauma are relatively rare. Such cases are often accompanied by significant complications, including intracranial hemorrhage, cerebral contusion, major vascular injury, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage, which pose substantial challenges in clinical management. Herein, we report a successful case of surgical treatment for an intracranial metallic foreign body, aiming to provide valuable insights for similar clinical scenarios. Clinical presentation: A 38-year-old male patient was urgently admitted to our emergency department following an intentional assault with a sickle, which resulted in an intracranial penetrating injury. Computed tomography (CT) scanning revealed the presence of a metallic foreign body that traversed the left temporal lobe and extended to the sphenoid bone and the posterior region of the right orbit. In response to this critical situation, an emergency surgical procedure was promptly initiated. The treatment strategy involved a combination of craniotomy and transnasal approaches to remove the metallic foreign body and reconstruct the skull base. Postoperatively, the patient exhibited no obvious adverse reactions, and his condition remained stable throughout the follow-up period. Conclusion: Intracranial foreign bodies often penetrate neural structures via the orbit or nasal cavity. When dealing with a long foreign body predominantly situated within the brain parenchyma, it is crucial to avoid blindly extracting it. Instead, shortening the length of the foreign body may be a more feasible approach to facilitate its safe removal and transportation. Preoperative acquisition of comprehensive imaging data is of utmost importance, as it aids in delineating the spatial relationship between the foreign body, major intracranial vessels, and cranial nerves, thereby enabling the formulation of a rational surgical plan. Whenever possible, the removal of intracranial foreign bodies should be carried out within 6-8 h post-trauma. Additionally, reliable skull base reconstruction is essential to prevent cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage and mitigate the risk of infectious complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.