|
|
|
|
|
|
Year: 2012 Vol. 16 Num. Suppl. 1 -
May
DOI: 10.7162/S1809-977720120S1PO-118
|
Print: |
|
|
|
|
FOREIGN BODY IN LARYNX IN 6 MONTHS IN CURRENT PATIENTS OF OROPHARYNGEAL EPIDERMOID CONCOMITANT CARCINOMA |
CORPO ESTRANHO EM LARINGE HÁ 6 MESES EM PACIENTE PORTADOR DE CARCINOMA EPIDERMÓIDE DE OROFARINGE CONCOMITANTE |
How to cite this article |
Magnoler RNM, Pinheiro GL, Bortoli CL, Maia Filho FC, Gusato LA, Ramalho Neto GC, et al. FOREIGN BODY IN LARYNX IN 6 MONTHS IN CURRENT PATIENTS OF OROPHARYNGEAL EPIDERMOID CONCOMITANT CARCINOMA . Int. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;16(Suppl. 1):83 |
|
Author(s): |
Renata Nakamura Mazzaro Magnoler, George do Lago Pinheiro, Carla Leal Bortoli, Fernando Cardoso Maia Filho, Lucas Antonio Gusato, Gabriel Cardoso Ramalho Neto
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract: |
OBJECTIVE: To report the case of foreign body in the larynx in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated at the Department of Otolaryngology and Neck Surgery at the Regional Hospital of Presidente Prudente in March 2012. CASE REPORT: J. R. M., male, 66 years old, drinker and smoker, said odynophagia after ingestion of fish for 6 months associated with ulcerative lesion in the soft palate, a weight loss of 10kg and hemoptisis. He denies drooling and fever. He was treated with antibiotics for tonsillitis five times before being referred to specialized services. Fibronasolaryngoscopy at another facility showed bulging rhino pharynx to clarify, without reporting the foreign body. Report of computed tomography of the neck on 08 November 2011, infiltrative lesion in the oropharynx, with about 3.5 x 3.2 cm, partially obliterating the vallecula and right parapharyngeal space. He was referred to the HRPP, which was biopsy of the soft palate which resulted diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma in situ. At the time, did not bring computerized tomography. On April 4, 2012, patient had an episode emesis expelling foreign body (fish bone). Revised tomography image of November 2011 and noted foreign body with dimensions of 2.5 cm approximately supported by tumor. CONCLUSION: The reported clinical history should always be valued, as well as review the images of the tests during consultation, regardless of their reports. The physician must infer their own CONCLUSION of exams in order not to underestimate patients' complaints, given the occurrence of concomitant diseases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Print: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All right reserved. Prohibited the reproduction of papers
without previous authorization of FORL © 1997-
2024
|
|
|
|
|