Archivos espanoles de urologia · 2021
[Pediatric foreign body. A two case report.].
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fadil Iturralde José Luis, Marani Jorge, Contardi Juan Carlos, Damiani Horacio
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Urethral insertion of foreign bodies is an infrequent emergency, being it exceptionally rare in prepubertal children. Both clinical presentation and the introduced elements are varied. Although sexualabuse and mental disorders must always be considered, these events are mainly related to the children's own body self-discovery without any sexual connotation. Endourologic approach is the treatment of choice while the need for conventional surgery is unusual.
OBJECTIVE: To review clinical and therapeutic aspects of the insertion of urethral foreign bodies in early childhood, and to report two new clinical cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 7-year-old boy and a 5-year-old boy, brought to emergency for referring the insertion of a metallic foreign body in the urethra. Both were oligosymptomatic, and the diagnosis was confirmed by radiology. They were treated with an endourological approach without any complications.
CONCLUSION: The introduction of foreign bodies in the urinary tract is an unusual problem in prepubertal children. Theirs approach must be individualized, not only limited to the removal of the foreign body but also to the exclusion of child abuse and psychiatric disorders.
OBJECTIVE: To review clinical and therapeutic aspects of the insertion of urethral foreign bodies in early childhood, and to report two new clinical cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 7-year-old boy and a 5-year-old boy, brought to emergency for referring the insertion of a metallic foreign body in the urethra. Both were oligosymptomatic, and the diagnosis was confirmed by radiology. They were treated with an endourological approach without any complications.
CONCLUSION: The introduction of foreign bodies in the urinary tract is an unusual problem in prepubertal children. Theirs approach must be individualized, not only limited to the removal of the foreign body but also to the exclusion of child abuse and psychiatric disorders.