Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2015 Mar 31;4:63. Originally published 2015 Mar 11. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6180.2

Case Report: Bone fragment in the third ventricle of a 22 year-old woman

Sunil Munakomi 1,a, Balaji Srinivas 1, Iype Cherian 1
PMCID: PMC4560254  PMID: 26380070

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

We have revised and added the reason for opting to remove the depressed fracture despite its anatomical location.

Abstract

Here we present a very rare case of a woman with a bone fragment in the third ventricle of the brain following compound-depressed skull fractures due to a road traffic accident.

There are only few case reports of bullets and textiloma being removed from the third ventricle. Following operative removal of the fragment, the patient was started on cortisol, mineralocorticoid and thyroid hormone replacement. However, the patient eventually died of the severe traumatic hypothalamic insult.

Keywords: bone fragment, brain surgery, compound-depressed fracture

Case report

A 22 year-old female, with no significant past medical and surgical illnesses, was brought to the casualty room with a Glasgow coma scale of 6/15 following a collision between two bikes three hours earlier. Local examination revealed two compound depressed skull fractures in the frontal and the parietal region with egress of brain matter. Following primary resuscitation, computed tomography (CT) of the head confirmed the local findings along with the presence of one bone fragment in the third ventricle ( Figure 1). The patient was taken for debridement of the wound and craniotomy circling the depressed sites. Since the patient was already extending and because there was already hemoventriculi, we opted for removal of the fragment despite its anatomical location so as to minimize further damage and chance of hydrocephalus. The bone fragment in the third ventricle was easily accessible following the hematoma track. An endoscope was also kept ready just in case the corridor to the fragment was difficult to access. Following retrieval of the bone fragment ( Figure 2, Figure 3), intraventricular drain was placed and neurosurgical intensive care was provided. Repeated CT scans showed hypodensities around the third ventricle ( Figure 4). On the second post-operative day, the patient was started on ionotropic support because of the refractory hypotension, and was also replaced with hydrocortisone, fludrocortisone and thyroid hormones. Wound dressing and the ventricular drain care was continued. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture from the drain resulted sterile. The patient died on the 8 th post-operative day because of the traumatic severe hypothalamic insult.

Figure 1. CT image showing the bone fragment lodged in the third ventricle.

Figure 1.

Figure 2. Intra-operative picture showing two sites of compound depressed fracture and the craniotomy performed circling both of them.

Figure 2.

Figure 3. Image showing the bone fragment retrieved from the third ventricle.

Figure 3.

Figure 4. Post-operative image showing evidence of hypodensities surrounding hypothalamic region.

Figure 4.

Discussion

As brain abscesses may result from driven bone fragments and other retained foreign bodies in the brain, the removal of readily accessible foreign bodies has received much attention 36. Migration of foreign bodies can occur because of gravitational force. Other routes of migration can be subdural, parenchymal, transventricular or along streamlining along the white matter track 7. The removal of foreign bodies is mostly done via craniotomy 8, 9, but other methods such as burr hole, stereotaxy 10 and sometimes by ventriculoscopy 11 have also been described.

The goals of modern treatments include removal of the foreign body under a controlled environment in the neurosurgical operation setting. Surgical principles include removal of bone fragments, intracerebral hematoma, control of hemorrhages and prevention of further loss of neural tissue. Patients should receive a broad spectrum intravenous antibiotic therapy along with tetanus prophylaxis. Monitoring and control of elevated intracranial pressure with maintenance of cerebral perfusion pressure plays a significant role in the patient’s survival and outcome. The follow-up of such patients is essential, considering known complications like cerebrospinal fluid fistula in the early post-operative period and brain abscesses and seizures which may occur years after injury. Outcome after a penetrating head injury is directly related to the Glasgow coma scale at the time of presentation, which is the reflection of the extent of brain tissue damage caused directly by the primary impact. Intensive post-operative monitoring of intracranial pressure, cardio-respiratory function and metabolic status are required for optimizing the outcome of victims of penetrating craniocerebral injuries 12. Penetrating head injuries have a higher mortality and morbidity than blunt trauma even in a civilian set up 13. Even after timely removal of the penetrating objects and intensive medical management, the outcome may remain poor.

Consent

Informed written consent for publication of images and clinical details was obtained from the patient’s husband.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

v2; ref status: indexed

References

  • 1. Greenwood J, Jr: Removal of foreign body (bullet) from the third ventricle. J Neurosurg. 1950;7(2):169–72. 10.3171/jns.1950.7.2.0169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Lavrnic S, Stosic-Opincal T, Gavrilovic S, et al. : Intraventricular textiloma with granuloma formation following third ventricle colloid cyst resection - a case report. Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2009;70(2):86–8. 10.1055/s-2008-1081506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Carey ME, Young H, Mathis JL, et al. : A bacteriological study of craniocerebral missile wounds from Vietnam. J Neurosurg. 1971;34(2 Pt 1):145–154. 10.3171/jns.1971.34.2part1.0145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Hagan RE: Early complications following penetrating wounds of the brain. J Neurosurg. 1971;34(2 Pt 1):132–141. 10.3171/jns.1971.34.2part1.0132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Hammon WM: Analysis of 2187 consecutive penetrating wounds of the brain from Vietnam. J Neurosurg. 1971;34(2 Pt 1):127–131. 10.3171/jns.1971.34.2part1.0127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Hammon WM: Retained intracranial bone fragments: analysis of 42 patients. J Neurosurg. 1971;34(2 Pt 1):142–144. 10.3171/jns.1971.34.2part1.0142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Rengarchy SS, Carey M, Templer J: The Sinking Bullet. J Neurosurg. 1992;30(2):291–294. 10.1097/00006123-199202000-00029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Campbell WP, Howard WO, Weary WB: Gunshot wounds of the brain. Report of two unusual complications: bifrontal pneumocephalus and a loose bullet in the lateral ventricle. Arch Surg. 1942;44(5):789–798. 10.1001/archsurg.1942.01210230013002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Sternbergh WC, Jr, Watts C, Clark K, et al. : Bullet within the fourth ventricle. Case report. J Neurosurg. 1971;34(6):805–807. 10.3171/jns.1971.34.6.0805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Sujita K, Doi T, Sato O, et al. : Successful removal of intracranial air-gun bullet with stereotaxic apparatus. J Neurosurg. 1969;30(2):177–181. 10.3171/jns.1969.30.2.0177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Dandy W: The brain. In: Lewis Practice of Surgery Hagerstown, Md.: Wf Prior Co Inc.1932;12: Chap 1,279–280. [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Rosenberg WS, Harsh GR: Penetrating wounds of the head. In Williams, Rengachary, editors. Neurosurgery.New York: McGraw-Hill;1996;2813–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Black KL, Hanks RA, Wood DL, et al. : Blunt versus penetrating violent traumatic brain injury: frequency and factors associated with secondary conditions and complications. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2002;17(6):489–96. 10.1097/00001199-200212000-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2015 Jul 7. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.6785.r8885

Referee response for version 2

Guoyi Gao 1

I read this report with high interests not only for this is a rare case of bone fragment moved into the third ventricle, I am also impressed by the surgical efforts to remove it. Obviously it is a successful operation and it indicates the well trained neurosurgical technique of the surgeon. The fatal outcome resulted from the failure of hypothalamus function, which is still a problem to be solved in the future.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2015 May 27. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.6785.r8705

Referee response for version 2

Ajit Shrestha 1

This is a rare case report from civilian society and is obviously will invite mixed school of thoughts.

The authors have wise reasons, obstructive hydrocephalus and infection, for removing the third ventricular bone fragment and, in doing so, has stated that the hematoma track, formed by the fragment traversing through the parenchyma, has been followed. The authors had made prudent decision by keeping neuroendoscope in hand for the removal of fragment in case of complications.

This report, I personally feel, encourages all trauma neurosurgeons to attempt removal of foreign body or possible source of infection or obstruction if it is accessible without undue further trauma to parenchyma.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2015 Mar 24. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.6625.r7934

Referee response for version 1

Andrey Belkin 1, Alexey Pychteev 1

It seems obvious that surgery even on symptomatic intracerebral foreign bodies is determined by the anatomical availability and physiological fact. In this case, initially, it seems that the risk of surgery was higher than the risk of complications due to the presence of a foreign body and, therefore, the intervention was not justified.

In order to give a more detailed review we would need to have a tomogram data on the patient’s condition. Based on the currently available outline of the situation, this patient would require more conservative treatment (aggressive antibiotic therapy in the presence of the slightest signs of SIRS or antibiotic prophylaxis from the first hours).

Only if the patient on admission had a detailed diencephalic syndrome (and judging by the description they did not) and clinical signs of meningitis, would we try endoscopic removal of the foreign body (if it is of small size, somewhere up to 1 cm). Thus one alternative conservative intervention is to attempt endoscopic evacuation.

If endoscopic evacuation is not possible (large size foreign bodies, technical inaccessibility through the ventricle), another possible surgical action that I would have done (but only in the case of ventriculitis) is external ventricular drainage. No more.

We have read this submission. We believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.


Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

RESOURCES