Foreign Glass Bodies in Pleura and Pancreas: Systematic Review for Entry Hypotheses and Treatment Options in an Unresolved Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Foreign bodies within the pleura and pancreas are infrequent, and the approaches to their treatment still a subject of debate. There is limited knowledge particularly regarding glass foreign bodies. METHODS: We present a case involving large glass splinters in the pleura and pancreas, with an unknown entry point. In addition, a systematic review was conducted to explore entry hypotheses and management options. RESULTS: In addition to our case, our review uncovered eight incidents of intrapleural glass, and another eight cases of glass in other intrathoracic areas. The fragments entered the body through impalement (81%), migrated through the diaphragm after impalement (6%), or caused transesophageal perforation (19%) following ingestion. Eight instances of glass inside the abdominal cavity were documented, with seven resulting from impalement injuries and one from transintestinal migration. There were no recorded instances of glass being discovered within the pancreas. Among the 41 nonglass intrapancreatic foreign bodies found, sewing needles (34%) and fish bones (46%) were the most common; following ingestion, they had migrated through either a transgastric or transduodenal perforation. In all these cases, how the foreign bodies were introduced was often poorly recalled by the patient. Many nonglass foreign bodies tend to become encapsulated by fibrous tissue, rendering them inert, though this is less common with glass. Glass has been reported to migrate through various tissues and cavities, sometimes with a significant delay spanning even decades. There are cases of intrapleural migration of glass causing hemothorax, pneumothorax, and heart and major blood vessels injury. For intrapleural glass fragment management, thoracoscopy proved to be effective in 5 reported cases, in addition to our patient. Most intrapancreatic nonglass foreign bodies tend to trigger pancreatitis and abscess formation, necessitating management ranging from laparoscopic procedures to subtotal pancreatectomy. There have been only four documented cases of intrapancreatic needles that remained asymptomatic with conservative management. There is no direct guidance from the existing literature regarding management of intrapancreatic glass foreign bodies. Consequently, our patient is under observation with regular follow-ups and has remained asymptomatic for the past 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Glass foreign bodies in the pleura are rare, and our report of an intrapancreatic glass fragment is the first of its kind. Impalement is the most likely method of introduction. As glass has significant migration and an ensuing complication potential, preventive removal of intrapleural loose glass should be considered. However, intrapancreatic glass fragment management remains uncertain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".