Trick of Trade: Dual Foley catheter to control massive epistaxis

Massive epistaxis is considered a medical emergency that requires immediate attention. Symptoms of massive epistaxis include sudden and heavy bleeding from the nose, difficulty breathing, dizziness, and a rapid heartbeat. If left untreated, it can lead to significant blood loss, shock, airway obstruction, and even death. We report a case of a 50-year-old man with end stage renal disease with massive nasal bleeding from the left nostril, shortness of breath, and confusion.

Initial Management

After a rapid assessment, we inserted an anterior nasal pack, soaked in epinephrine, TXA, and an antibiotic-based lubricant. However, the bleeding continued from his nares and posterior oropharynx. We thus removed the anterior packing and instead inserted a Foley catheter into the posterior nasal space and inflated the balloon. Unfortunately, the bleeding still continued. Because he presumably had uremia-induced thrombasthenia (weak platelets), he received blood transfusions and IV TXA. And still — he continued bleeding heavily.

Trick of the Trade: Dual Catheter Technique

To provide optimal surface area coverage and tamponade effect of the posterior vessels, concurrent anterior packing is usually needed [1]. You can use commercial devices that have a dual balloon setup, but we did not have that available.

dual balloon for massive epistaxis

Illustration by Dr. Abdelhameed with patient-consented photo of dual balloon technique

Technique

  1. Insert the a 14-French Foley catheter into the nares with the patient’s mouth open (balloon 1). Stop when you see the tip of the catheter dangling in the posterior oropharynx.
  2. Inflate the balloon partially with 15-20 cc of air.
  3. Gently pull the catheter anteriorly until you feel resistance such that the balloon is snuggly positioned.
  4. If the bleeding still continues, insert a second Foley catheter until you meet resistance (balloon 2). Inflate this second balloon with 15 cc of air.

For our case, this dual catheter compression technique succeeded in halting the bleed.

Interested in Other Tricks of the Trade?

Reference

  1. Goralnick E. Posterior Epistaxis Nasal Packing. Medscape. Published Dec 9, 2020

Trick of Trade: Removal of Entrapped Metal Zipper

zipper entrapment injury

A young boy is brought to the pediatric emergency screaming at the top of his lungs by his parents. His penile skin is trapped in the zipper of his jeans. On a busy shift, you want a simple way to handle zipper injuries that minimizes pain, doesn’t require resource-intensive procedural sedation, and is quick.

Background

The 4 most common types of zippers are nylon coil zip, plastic mold zip, metal zip, and invisible zip. Most of the techniques describing solutions on zipper entrapment in the medical literature are derived from case reports and case series. All revolve around understanding zipper anatomy and obtaining adequate exposure to assess how the skin is entrapped. The penile skin often is entrapped either in the sliding mechanism (also known as the endplate) or between the teeth of the zipper.

zipper anatomy

Figure 1. Anatomy of a zipper

Penile Entrapment Injury Management Techniques in Literature

Reported techniques for releasing zippers include [1, 2]:

  • Cut the sliding mechanism (aka the endplate) using metal cutters.
  • Use a flat screwdriver placed underneath the sliding mechanism and rotate it.
  • Use mineral oil for lubrication.
  • Use lateral compression technique to relieve the tension on the trapped skin.
  • Cut the zipper and pull the teeth apart.

All these techniques are associated with variable rates of success. Some of these techniques such as using metal cutters might lead to iatrogenic injuries.

The problem is that the child’s penile skin is entrapped within a metal zipper, where many recommended methods for zipper entrapment removal won’t work.

Trick of the Trade: Removing Metal Zippers

Materials Needed

  • Lidocaine gel
  • Blade or scissors

Technique

  1. The zipper should be separated from the pants as much as possible to minimize painful stretching or pulling of the penile skin.
  2. Apply lidocaine gel on the area of entrapment for 2-3 minutes.
  3. Identify the exposed teeth closest to slider and cut off the zipper at that level (blue dots) while avoiding penile skin (Figure 2).
  4. Gently advance the zipper body forward, pulling either the tab or the body itself, to disengage it from the teeth. You may need to add more lidocaine gel or other lubrication to facilitate this sliding motion.
  5. The remaining parts of the zipper can easily be disengaged from the skin (Figure 3).

metal zipper cut trick zipper entrapment

Figure 2. Cutting off the zipper between the teeth (blue dots) and advancing the zipper body (yellow arrow)

metal zipper entrapped free

Figure 3. Freed zipper body

Interested in Other Tricks of the Trade?

References

  1. Leslie SW, Sajjad H, Taylor RS. Penile Zipper and Ring Injuries. [Updated 2023 Mar 11]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-.
  2. Tasian GE, Belfer RA. Genitourinary trauma. In: Fleisher and Ludwig’s Textbook of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, 7th ed, Shaw K, Bachur RG (Eds), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2015.

SAEM Clinical Images Series: A Rare Pediatric Scalp Rash

rash

The patient is a 3-month-old, full-term male who presents with a rash on his head. The rash started one day prior to presentation on his forehead and spread to the rest of his head. Today, it developed a central clearing with surrounding redness. He has a history of sensitive skin since birth with patches of eczema and cradle cap. He treats these with Aquaphor and Honest Co. Cream; he has never been prescribed topical steroids for his rashes. Denies fever, cough, rhinorrhea, congestion, decreased appetite, diarrhea, and decreased urination. He had an uncomplicated birth history.

General: Well appearing, no distress.

Skin: Large, serpiginous rash on the left forehead and scalp with central clearing and peripheral erythema as well as areas of erythematous plaques. He has some erythema of the left medial epicanthus. He also has a large erythematous patch at the base of his skull. The remainder of his skin is clear.

CV: Normal rate and rhythm, no murmur.

White blood cell (WBC) count: 8.4

Hemoglobin: 12.4

Hematocrit: 37.1

Platelet Count: 468

Complete metabolic panel (CMP): ALT 30, AST 60, Alk phos 266, Tbili 0.7, Total Protein 6.4

The image is of the cutaneous manifestation of neonatal lupus erythematosus. Neonatal lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease caused by transplacental passage of maternal autoantibodies to Sjögren’s syndrome A or B autoantigens (SS-A/SS-B). It can present with reversible changes including cutaneous lesions (most common, in up to 40% of patients), hepatobiliary disease, and cytopenias, which resolve once maternal autoantibodies have been cleared.

All infants that present with concern for neonatal lupus erythematosus should have screening labs performed to evaluate for hematologic, cardiac, and hepatobiliary involvement including a CBC with differential, liver enzymes, and antibody testing. In addition, an EKG is essential given that neonates can present with irreversible total atrioventricular heart block, which can present in utero or after birth.

The rash typically presents in the first few weeks of life but can present as late as 2-3 months of life (usually within 1-2 days of first sun exposure). Eighty percent of cases are not clear at birth and present in the first month of life. The rash appears as a coalescing rash with raised margins, with annular and discoid erythema involving the head in 95% of cases. It is often misdiagnosed as skin infections or eczema if the mom is asymptomatic. Fifty percent resolve by four months of life and 100% by one year.

Any neonate with a slow fetal heart rate or the postnatal diagnosis of atrioventricular heart block warrants immediate maternal testing for these autoantibodies. Most cardiac changes from neonatal lupus are diagnosed before 26 weeks gestation, with <20% later in pregnancy and 2% detected postnatally.

Take-Home Points

  • While cutaneous findings of neonatal lupus most commonly present in the first month of life, they can present as late as 2-3 months.
  • The cutaneous findings associated with neonatal lupus most of the time resolve in 4-6 months (when maternal antibodies are cleared from the infant’s circulation).
  • Any baby with findings concerning for neonatal lupus should have an EKG performed. Around 2% of infants present with heart block postnatally within the first month.

  • Diaz-Frias J, Badri T. Neonatal Lupus Erythematosus. [Updated 2021 Jun 30]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526061/
  • Lee LA. Neonatal lupus erythematosus: clinical findings and pathogenesis. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2004 Jan;9(1):52-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1087-0024.2004.00827.x. PMID: 14870986.

By |2023-04-05T14:00:29-07:00Apr 10, 2023|Dermatology, Pediatrics, SAEM Clinical Images|

The Febrile Infant: Incorporating the 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines

Can you trust a febrile infant?

“No” has been, and continues to be, the resounding answer over the last 40 years as researchers and clinicians work to determine the optimal evaluation and management of the well-appearing young febrile infant [1].

The goal remains to identify infants with bacterial infections in this at-risk cohort of patients while also considering the balance of cost-effectiveness on a population scale and the potential for iatrogenic harm with evaluation such as unnecessary lumbar punctures, unnecessary antibiotics, and unnecessary hospitalization. Fortunately, bacteremia and bacterial meningitis in this age group are uncommon [2]. Unfortunately, delayed or missed diagnosis can be devastating [1-3].

In the most recent 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) aims to provide guidance with 3 separate age-based algorithms for the evaluation and management of the well-appearing febrile infant [4]. These guidelines were made possible by the recent PECARN, Step by Step, and other studies and the invaluable information they have provided [5-7].

Who’s included?

  • Well-appearing febrile infants
    • The AAP acknowledges that clinician experience is likely the best determinate of what is “well-appearing”, further admitting that there is no measure or definition of either “experience” or “well-appearing”
  •  Febrile
    • Rectal temperatures of  38.0C or 100.4F at home in the past 24 hours or determined in a clinical setting
    • Subjective fevers at home are excluded
  •  Gestation
    • Between 37-42 weeks
    • Premature infants excluded
  • Age
    • Days 8 to 60 and have been discharged home following birth

Who is not included?

  • Preterm or infants with congenital/chromosomal abnormalities
  • Infants with focal bacterial infections
  • Cellulitis, omphalitis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis
  •  Bronchiolitis
    • With or without a positive RSV test
  •  Immunocompromised
    • Either suspected or known deficiency
  • Immunizations in the previous 48 hours

It should also be noted that the AAP has named the following as high-risk inflammatory markers that will be referenced in the soon-to-be-discussed guidelines [4,5].

  • Temperature >101.3F (38.5C)
  • C-reactive protein (CRP) > 20 mg/L
  • Procalcitonin >0.5 ng/mL
  • Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) >4000 mm3  (or 5200 mm3 if your facility does not have procalcitonin available)

The Groups

While the AAP makes the distinction of an age 0-7 days group from the age 8-21 days, they provide no specific recommendations about emergency department (ED) management in the youngest group [4]. Despite this, these infant groups are likely best evaluated and managed similarly in the ED:

  • Urinalysis (UA) +/- urine culture if indicated by UA
  • Blood culture
  • Lumbar puncture (LP)
    • Cell count, Gram stain, glucose, protein, bacterial culture, and enterovirus PCR (if available)
  • Admission

Inflammatory markers are not required to determine ED management in this age group but may guide inpatient clinicians.

Treatment

  • Ampicillin IV or IM
  • Ceftazidime IV or IM or gentamicin IV or IM

The addition of acyclovir to IV antibiotics depends on the following risk factors which increase the likelihood of HSV:

  • Maternal genital HSV lesions or fever 48 hours before or after delivery
  • Infants with vesicles, seizures, hypothermia, mucous membrane ulcers
  • CSF pleocytosis with a negative Gram stain result
  • Leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, or elevated AST/ALT levels

Although many febrile infants in this group will still require a full evaluation for sepsis, there are some new alternatives in patients meeting certain criteria. At the minimum, all 22-28 day old infants will need:

  • UA +/- culture
  • Blood culture
  • Inflammatory markers (ANC, CRP, procalcitonin)

Further management of a well-appearing infant in this group can be based on the following pathways:

    1. If UA positive with negative inflammatory markers
      • LP may be performed but is not required
      • IV antibiotics and admission are required regardless
    2. If UA negative with negative inflammatory markers, then there are 2 options
      • Perform LP
        • If LP negative, then the patient can be given a dose of parenteral antibiotics and discharged home with close follow-up in 24 hours.
        • If LP is traumatic or pleocytosis is present, administer antibiotics and admit.
      • Defer LP
        • Antibiotics may be administered, but the patient should be admitted.
    3. If UA negative and ANY positive inflammatory marker (procalcitonin > 0.5 mg/mL, CRP >20 mg/L, ANC >4000, or temperature >101.3F), LP is required
      1. If LP positive
        • Admit with IV antibiotics
      2. If LP negative
        • Admit +/- antibiotics, OR
        • Discharge home after one dose of parenteral antibiotic with 24-hour follow-up

Treatment

  • Same antibiotic options as the day 0-21 infants

The nuances of this group’s decision tree revolve around the inflammatory markers.

Each infant in this group should have the following completed:

  • Urinalysis
  • Blood Cultures
  • Inflammatory markers (CRP, ANC, and procalcitonin)

If everything is negative (UA & inflammatory markers):

  • Infants may be discharged home without antibiotics and with close follow-up within 36 hours.

If inflammatory markers are negative:

  • Infants with a positive urinalysis and negative inflammatory markers may be treated with oral antibiotics.
    • They may be either admitted to the hospital for observation or discharged with 24-hour follow-up.
    • No LP needed.

If inflammatory markers are positive:

  • A LP may be performed if the clinician feels it necessary but is not required.
    • If performed and CSF is negative the infant may be discharged with close follow-up.
    • Given high risk of bacteremia with elevated inflammatory markers in this age group, a dose of parenteral antibiotics prior to discharge is appropriate.
  • If LP deferred:
    • Administer parenteral antibiotics, and likely admit to hospital.
    • The caveat to this is if they have viral testing completed that is positive and are well appearing.
      • Example: A 48-day-old infant presents with a fever of 100.6F, CRP of 22 mg/L, and otherwise normal procalcitonin, ANC, and UA. The mother reports that an older brother has had a runny nose. Viral PCR testing is positive for rhinovirus. Seeing as the UA is negative, the infant appears well with a positive viral test, they may go home with shared decision-making and close outpatient follow-up, despite a positive inflammatory marker (CRP 22 mg/L) [3].

Treatment

Urinary Tract Infection:

  • Ceftriaxone (IV/IM) or cephalexin/cefixime as oral options.

Concern for Bacteremia/Meningitis:

  • Ceftriaxone + vancomycin
  • May add acyclovir for the above-mentioned antiviral treatment indications.

What should be done if the viral panel is positive?

  • Children 29 days or older with fever from a documented viral source can be managed according to their clinical presentation and can go outside the algorithm.
  • This requires a documented positive viral swab and not just a presentation consistent with a viral syndrome.
  • UTI is common in this age group, and a UA should be obtained [8].

Conclusion

Over the course of nearly the last half century there has been a lack of clear evidence-based guidelines in evaluating the young febrile infant [1]. Although serious bacterial infections in these young, febrile infants are uncommon, studies show that in the first month of life, bacteremia can be present in nearly 3% of febrile infants, with bacterial meningitis occurring in about 1% [2]. The absence of consensus regarding management has led to significant costs due to hospitalizations and their associated iatrogenic complications [9]. In the movement to create new recommendations, shifting epidemiology pushed changes in previous guidelines with a new focus on the use of the now widely available inflammatory markers [10].  With the advent of multiple large-scale studies and the recent improvements in lab testing, the newly updated AAP guidelines provide recommendations on how to manage this challenging population [4-7].

Take Home Points

  • These management strategies can only be used in WELL-APPEARING infants – if they’re ill-appearing, do a complete workup.
  • Evaluation of febrile infants 0-21 days remains the same – do everything (blood culture, UA +/- culture, LP with CSF studies), give antibiotics, and admit.
  • For those infants 22-28 days, get the UA, blood culture, and inflammatory markers to guide management.
    • Not all febrile infants in the 22-28 day subset need an LP, though it should still be obtained in certain clinical circumstances, and discussed between  provider and parents in other situations
  • In infants ≤28 days, a complete workup is still needed even if a viral source is present.
  • Febrile infants 29-60 days old may be sent home after a negative workup with close follow-up.

References:

    1. Roberts KB. Young, febrile infants: a 30-year odyssey ends where it started. JAMA. 2004 Mar 10;291(10):1261-2. PMID: 15010450.
    2. Biondi EA, Lee B, Ralston SL, et al. Prevalence of Bacteremia and Bacterial Meningitis in Febrile Neonates and Infants in the Second Month of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA Network Open. 2019 Mar; 2(3). PMID: 30901044.
    3. Baker MD, Avner JR, Bell LM. Failure of infant observation scales in detecting serious illness in febrile, 4- to 8-week old infants. Pediatrics. 1990;85(6):1040–1043. PMID: 2339027
    4. Pantell RH, Roberts KB, Adams WG, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline: Evaluation and Management of Well Appearing Febrile Infants 8 to 60 Days Old. Pediatrics. 2021;148(2):e2021052228. PMID: 34281996
    5. Kuppermann N, Dayan PS, Levine DA, et al. A Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Febrile Infants 60 Days and Younger at Low Risk for Serious Bacterial Infections. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(4):342-351. PMID: 30776077
    6. Gomez B, Mintegi S, Bressan S, et al. Validation of the “Step-by-Step” approach in the management of young febrile infants. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2016 Aug; 138(2):e20154381. PMID: 27382134
    7. Nguyen THP, Young BR, Poggel LE, et al. Roseville Protocol for the Management of Febrile Infants 7-60 Days. Hosp Pediatr. 2020 Dec 17:hpeds.2020-0187. PMID: 33334815
    8. Shaikh N, Morone NE, Bost JE, Farrell MH. Prevalence of urinary tract infection in childhood: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008;27(4):302-308. PMID: 18316994
    9. Coyle C, Brock G, Wallihan R, Leonard JC. Cost Analysis of Emergency Department Criteria for Evaluation of Febrile Infants Ages 29 to 90 Days. J Pediatr. 2021 Apr;231:94-101.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.10.033. Epub 2020 Oct 31. PMID:33130155.

    Milcent K, Faesch S, Gras-Le Guen C, et al. Use of Procalcitonin Assays to Predict Serious Bacterial Infection in Young Febrile Infants [published correction appears in JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Jun 1;170(6):624].JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(1):62-69. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3210 PMID: 26595253

SAEM Clinical Images Series: An 8-year-old Male with Dysuria

dysuria

An 8-year-old Caucasian male with no significant past medical history presented to the pediatric emergency department (ED) with complaints of three days of abdominal pain and dysuria, accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and poor oral intake. The patient had previously presented to his pediatrician, where he was found to have microscopic hematuria and subsequently sent to the ED. Microscopic hematuria and increased abdominal pain in the ED prompted a point of care ultrasound (POCUS).

GI: Soft on palpation, normal bowel sounds, tender to palpation at midline below the umbilicus.

GU: No trauma or erythema of the penis.

Remaining exam wnl.

Urinalysis (UA): Yellow; Cloudy; Ketones: 15; Protein >=300; Leukocyte esterase: large; Nitrite: positive; WBC/HPF: Packed; RBC/HPF:51-100

Urine Culture: >100,000 staphylococcus CFU/mL

The most likely site of abnormality in this patient is the urethra. Image 1 shows massive bilateral hydronephrosis while image 2 shows hydroureter and bladder wall thickening. This presentation in a male, together with the lab findings suggestive of a UTI, should raise concerns for posterior urethral valves (PUV). PUV, a congenital obstruction of the urethra, is one of the most common causes of lower urinary tract obstruction in males. [1]

The next step in management for patients with probable PUV is a referral to a urologist for a voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) and cystoscopy to assess for vesicoureteral reflux and valvular obstruction. Patients who are found to have PUV can then undergo incision and correction of the urethral valve. PUV typically presents in the newborn period in males with a poor urinary stream, urinary tract infections, and other voiding complaints and can be corrected with bladder catheterization or valvular ablation [1,2].

Take-Home Points

  • While rare, PUV should be considered in the differential for any pediatric patient presenting with urinary tract-related complaints, abdominal pain, and unexplained nausea or vomiting, particularly in school-aged males.
  • A school-aged male without an underlying diagnosis presenting to the hospital with a UTI should prompt clinicians to look for underlying predisposing conditions, such as PUV – an undertaking in which bedside ultrasound can be extremely useful.
  • Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is a tool used in real time by emergency physicians to provide evidence for hydronephrosis, which can lead to the diagnosis of PUV.

  • Hodges SJ, Patel B, McLorie G, Atala A. Posterior urethral valves. ScientificWorldJournal. 2009 Oct 14;9:1119-26. doi: 10.1100/tsw.2009.127. PMID: 19838598; PMCID: PMC5823193.
  • Shields LBE, White JT, Mohamed AZ, Peppas DS, Rosenberg E. Delayed Presentation of Urethral Valves: A Diagnosis That Should Be Suspected Despite a Normal Prenatal Ultrasound. Glob Pediatr Health. 2020 Oct 15;7:2333794X20958918. doi: 10.1177/2333794X20958918. PMID: 33117862; PMCID: PMC7570289.

SAEM Clinical Images Series: A Rare Cause of Post-traumatic Neck Pain

neck pain

A 15-year-old male presents to the pediatric Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation of neck pain for three weeks. The patient is vague as to the development of his symptoms, but his mother reveals patient was assaulted by peers three weeks ago and has had progressively worsening neck pain and stiffness. The patient states symptoms have gotten to the point where he is unable to turn his head but denies fevers, chills, nausea, vomiting, focal weakness, or sensory changes.

Vitals: Temp: 99.4°F; HR 80; RR 18; SpO2 98% on room air

Constitutional: No distress, sitting rigidly in bed.

Neck: Cervical midline tenderness noted with rigid neck and severe tenderness with manipulation, no swelling, erythema, or masses noted.

HEENT: No pharyngeal injection, no visible masses in the oropharynx, no trismus.

CV: Regular rate and rhythm, no murmurs, rubs, or gallops. Good peripheral perfusion.

Abdomen: Soft, non-distended and non-tender.

Neuro: 5/5 motor function to the bilateral upper and lower extremities, normal sensory examination, cranial nerves intact. Negative Kernig’s sign.

White blood cell (WBC) count: 9.5

Platelets: 639

Glucose: 105

CRP: 128

ESR: 100

CSF: Color- Clear; Nucleated Cells- 1; Protein- 25; Glucose- 6

This patient was found to have septic arthritis of the atlantooccipital (AO) joint, noted on the CT shown above, with joint space narrowing and erosion (red arrow) of the right AO joint with associated soft tissue swelling and effusion. Seen on the MRI is further confirmation of the findings suggested on CT of septic arthritis, with additional noting of attenuation of the prevertebral space of C2/C3 suggestive of phlegmon, bilateral AO joint arthritis, and involvement of the atlantoaxial joint, all of which can be seen on the above sagittal cut of the MRI, with the most notable being the pre-vertebral phlegmon (red arrow).

Septic arthritis of the facet joints is a rarity, particularly in pediatrics and in the cervical spine; case reports largely describe a lumbar location in elderly adults with predisposing comorbidities (intravenous drug use, diabetes, immunosuppression) for spontaneous infection. There are no published case reports of traumatic, pediatric AO joint septic arthritis. This patient developed septic arthritis following trauma. As with peripheral septic arthritis, the most common cause is hematogenous spread, and even non-penetrating trauma can predispose a joint to infection as likely occurred in this case. Septic arthritis of the facet joints presents similarly to spondylodiscitis, generally with fever, neck or back pain, and elevated inflammatory markers such as CRP/ESR. If left untreated, it can be a dangerous and refractory cause of sepsis that leads to deadly complications such as concomitant epidural access formation. Oftentimes patients are initially misdiagnosed and re-present multiple times as the preferred image modality for diagnosis is MRI which is not always readily available or ordered. In general, treatment generally includes weeks-long courses of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, though this patient was discharged on oral antibiotics after significant symptomatic improvement on IV therapy after four days.

Take-Home Points

  • Septic arthritis of the cervical facet joints, namely the AO joint, is a rare cause of neck pain in patients with fever and elevated inflammatory markers, and can present after trauma. Generally, it is hematogenously spread and associated with comorbidities such as diabetes, intravenous drug use, and immunosuppression, it should be considered in patients with refractory symptoms or in which there is strong suspicion as it can have dangerous complications.
  • The preferred imaging modality for diagnosis is MRI, though CT can be useful in making the diagnosis radiographically. Treatment generally consists of weeks of IV antibiotics.

  • Sethi S, Vithayathil MK. Cervical facet joint septic arthritis: a real pain in the neck. BMJ Case Rep. 2017 Aug 3;2017:bcr2016218510. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2016-218510. PMID: 28775081; PMCID: PMC5612571.
  • Narváez J, Nolla JM, Narváez JA, Martinez-Carnicero L, De Lama E, Gómez-Vaquero C, Murillo O, Valverde J, Ariza J. Spontaneous pyogenic facet joint infection. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Apr;35(5):272-83. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2005.09.003. PMID: 16616150.

SAEM Clinical Images Series: Facial Swelling

facial swelling

A 5-year-old male with a history of recent frontal sinusitis associated with preseptal cellulitis requiring surgery presented with facial swelling. Swelling developed in the 24 hours prior to presentation without facial pain, nausea, or emesis. Denied facial trauma as well as any neurologic deficits, loss of consciousness, headaches, or fever/chills. At the time of his prior surgery, he presented with swelling localized to the left eye along with worsening pain, nausea, and emesis. After surgery, he was discharged in stable condition on antibiotics for 10 days. He has been in his usual state of health since that time.

Vitals: BP 93/59 (Sitting); HR 84; Temp 37.3 °C (99.1 °F) (Oral); Resp 12; Wt 20.6 kg (45 lb 6.6 oz)

General: Active, alert, normal development, and in no acute distress

HEENT: Swelling over the forehead and nasal bridge. Tenderness to palpation over the forehead. No erythema or overlying skin changes.

Nose: Normal appearance. No congestion or rhinorrhea.

Mouth/Throat: Mucous membranes are moist. Oropharynx is clear.

White blood cell (WBC) count: 8.9 x 10^3/uL

Hemoglobin: 11.5 g/dL

Platelets: 365 x 10^3/uL

ANC: 4.490 x 10^3/uL

ESR: 15 mm

CRP: <0.5 mg

In the initial management of this patient, CT imaging of the head with contrast should be used to characterize the lesion and evaluate for intracranial involvement. In our patient, the CT scan showed frontal bone osteomyelitis with possible extension into the subdural space. He was admitted on broad-spectrum antibiotics and surgical washout was performed the following day.

Pott’s Puffy Tumor is a rare but serious complication of sinusitis with potential intracranial involvement. Complications include orbital cellulitis, intracranial abscess, meningitis, and cavernous sinus thrombosis.

Take-Home Points

  • Pott’s Puffy Tumor is a rare potential complication of sinusitis. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to reduce morbidity.
  • CT of the head with contrast is the initial imaging that should be obtained in the emergency department.

  • Blumfield E1, Misra M. Pott’s puffy tumor, intracranial, and orbital complications as the initial presentation of sinusitis in healthy adolescents, a case series. Emerg Radiol. 2011 Jun;18(3):203-10. PMID: 21380513.
  • Palabiyik FB1, Yazici Z, Cetin B, Celebi S, Hacimustafaoglu M. Pott Puffy Tumor in Children: A Rare Emergency Clinical Entity. J Craniofac Surg. 2016 May;27(3):e313-6. PMID: 27100642.

By |2022-12-08T22:22:41-08:00Dec 19, 2022|HEENT, Pediatrics, SAEM Clinical Images|
Go to Top