Home > Journals > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences > Past Issues > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2020 April;64(2) > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2020 April;64(2):190-9



To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2020 April;64(2):190-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0390-5616.19.04793-3


language: English

Classification of orbitocranial wooden foreign body penetration injuries: what to do when they violate the intracranial space? A systematic review

Jacopo DEL VERME 1, Enrico GIORDAN 1 , Elisabetta MARTON 2, Roberto ZANATA 1, Francesco DI PAOLA 3, Giuseppe CANOVA 1, Pierluigi LONGATTI 2

1 Department of Neurosurgery, Aulss 2 Marca Trevigiana, Treviso, Italy; 2 Department of Neuroscience, Padova University, Padua, Italy; 3 Department of Radiology, Treviso Regional Hospital, Treviso, Italy

INTRODUCTION: Orbitocranial wooden foreign body (OWF) penetrations are rare but challenging occurrences that may violate the intracranial space resulting in brain damage and hemorrhagic, as well as infectious, complications. Moreover, there is a specific subset of cases of OWF penetrations that are particularly challenging to treat. Although there are well-defined management guidelines for pure intraorbital localization, there is not yet a defined treatment protocol for foreign bodies reaching the intracranial space. However, their removal performed either directly or through craniotomy, is often easily attainable given the condition that all necessary precautions are accounted for.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: After having treated a 48-year-old man with a transorbital OWF penetration injury at our neurosurgical department, we systematically reviewed the last 15 years of literature to define and summarize the best management strategy. Multiple databases were searched for case reports and case series involving patients with intraorbital and transorbital OWF penetration injuries. For each study, we extracted data on age, sex, imaging modality, type of wood (processed vs. unprocessed), location of periorbital and intracranial entry site, treatment type (“pull and see” or “open and see”), antibiotic therapy, and complications.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We classified transorbital OWFs into two categories: transorbital with only cavernous sinus involvement and transorbital with more extensive intracranial involvement. We described what we believed was the most appropriate management conduct in each case.
CONCLUSIONS: Grounded on our experience and on the review of the literature, we suggest, based on the anatomical localization of the OWF, a classification system for OWFs which is coupled with a tailored treatment strategy for each case. These suggestions are made to provide surgeons with direction on the correct management of such rare but challenging occurrences.

KEY WORDS: Wood; Foreign bodies; Orbit

top of page