A case report of a large multiloculated cyst following the retention of a long gas in cesarean section

Document Type : Case report


1 Assistant professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Health and Diseases Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran.

2 Assistant professor, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.

4 Instructor, Department of Anesthesiology, Research Center for Social Determinants of Health, Faculty of Medicine, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran.



Introduction: The term gossypiboma is used to describe surgical sponges or gauzes that remain in the patient's body after a surgery. The present study reports a case of a large multiloculated cyst following the retention of a long gas in an emergency cesarean section.
Case Presentation: A 37-year-old female patient underwent a cesarean section at a gestational age of 38 weeks due to labor pains and rupture of the membranes, and the baby was delivered and the patient was discharged without any complications. About 5 months later, the patient referred because of right flank pain. In the ultrasound, a large multiloculate cyst was reported on the right side of the pelvis and slightly above it. The general surgeon requested a CT scan, which revealed a cyst-like mass on the right side of the abdominal cavity with fluid and gas accumulation. Finally, after months of waiting for various imaging, the X-ray image diagnosed the foreign body of long gauze after 11 months. For this reason, the patient was hospitalized and underwent surgery, and then the cyst, which consisted of long gas and a thick wall of ammentum around it, was released and removed. A week later, the patient had a general condition without problems.
Conclusion: Failure to prevent the occurrence of Gossypiboma is one of the most important issues that causes serious complications such as large cysts in patients. Therefore, all scrub and circular personnel in the operating room should use all their attention when performing instrument counts.


Main Subjects

  1. Hempel S, Maggard-Gibbons M, Nguyen DK, Dawes AJ, Miake-Lye I, Beroes JM, et al. Wrong-site surgery, retained surgical items, and surgical fires: a systematic review of surgical never events. JAMA surgery 2015; 150(8):796-805.
  2. Hyslop JW, Maull KI. Natural history of the retained surgical sponge. Southern medical journal 1982; 75(6):657-60.
  3. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. New England Journal of Medicine 2003; 348(3):229-35.
  4. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J, Storsveen A, Weisbrod C, Deschamps C. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2008; 207(1):80-7.
  5. Sankpal J, Tayade M, Rathore J, Parikh A, Gadekar D, Sankpal S. Oh, My Gauze!!!-A rare case report of laparoscopic removal of an incidentally discovered gossypiboma during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. International Journal of Surgery Case Reports 2020; 72:643-6.
  6. Târcoveanu E, Dimofte G, Georgescu ŞT, Vasilescu A, Lupaşcu C, Bradea C, et al. Laparoscopic retrieval of gossypibomas—short series and review of literature. Acta Chirurgica Belgica 2011; 111(6):366-9.
  7. Özsoy Z, Okan I, Daldal E, Dasıran MF, Angın YS, Şahin M. Laparoscopic removal of gossypiboma. Case Reports in Surgery 2015; 2015.
  8. Yamamura N, Nakajima K, Takahashi T, Uemura M, Nishitani A, Souma Y, et al. Intra-abdominal textiloma. A retained surgical sponge mimicking a gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor: report of a case. Surgery today 2008; 38:552-4.
  9. McIntyre LK, Jurkovich GJ, Gunn ML, Maier RV. Gossypiboma: tales of lost sponges and lessons learned. Archives of Surgery 2010; 145(8):770-5.
  10. Hariharan D, Lobo DN. Retained surgical sponges, needles and instruments. The Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2013; 95(2):87-92.
  11. National Quality Forum. Serious reportable events in healthcare—2011 update: a consensus report.
  12. Steelman VM, Shaw C, Shine L, Hardy-Fairbanks AJ. Retained surgical sponges: a descriptive study of 319 occurrences and contributing factors from 2012 to 2017. Patient Safety in Surgery 2018; 12:1-8.
  13. Ukwenya AY, Dogo PM, Ahmed A, Nmadu PT. The retained surgical sponge following laparotomy; forgotten at surgery, often forgotten at diagnosis. Our experience. Nigerian journal of surgical research 2006; 8(3-4):164-8.
  14. Macario A, Morris D, Morris S. Initial clinical evaluation of a handheld device for detecting retained surgical gauze sponges using radiofrequency identification technology. Archives of Surgery 2006; 141(7):659-62.
  15. Naiem ME, Suliman SH, Elgurashi ME, Arabi NA, Mohammedkhair AA, Nafi HM. Small bowel obstruction and ileocolic fistula caused by post-myomectomy Gossypiboma transmural migration: a case report and review of the literature. International Journal of Surgery Case Reports 2021; 87:106431.
  16. Zantvoord Y, van der Weiden RM, van Hooff MH. Transmural migration of retained surgical sponges: a systematic review. Obstetrical & gynecological survey 2008; 63(7):465-71.
  17. Inaba K, Okoye O, Aksoy H, Skiada D, Ault G, Sener S, et al. The role of radio frequency detection system embedded surgical sponges in preventing retained surgical sponges: a prospective evaluation in patients undergoing emergency surgery. Annals of surgery 2016; 264(4):599-604.
  18. Agrawal A. Counting matters: lessons from the root cause analysis of a retained surgical item. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 2012; 38(12):566-AP1.
  19. Norton EK, Micheli AJ, Gedney J, Felkerson TM. A Nurse‐led Approach to Developing and Implementing a Collaborative Count Policy. AORN journal 2012; 95(2):222-7.
  20. Norton EK, Martin C, Micheli AJ. Patients count on it: an initiative to reduce incorrect counts and prevent retained surgical items. AORN journal 2012; 95(1):109-21.
  21. Williams TL, Tung DK, Steelman VM, Chang PK, Szekendi MK. Retained Surgical Sponges: Findings from Incident Reports and a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Radiofrequency TechnologyTable 1 Retained Surgical Items and Surgical Count Events by Type of ItemTable 2 Summary of Events Involving Retained Sponges and Surgical Sponge Count Issues from Event Descriptions. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2014; 219(3):354-64.
  22. Hariharan D, Lobo DN. Retained surgical sponges, needles and instruments. The Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2013; 95(2):87-92.
  23. Greenberg CC, Diaz-Flores R, Lipsitz SR, Regenbogen SE, Mulholland L, Mearn F, et al. Bar-coding surgical sponges to improve safety: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery 2008; 247(4):612-6.
  24. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Clark J, Pool S, Weisbrod C, Amstutz GJ, et al. Using a data-matrix–coded sponge counting system across a surgical practice: impact after 18 months. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 2011; 37(2):51-AP3.
  25. Rogers A, Jones E, Oleynikov D. Radio frequency identification (RFID) applied to surgical sponges. Surgical endoscopy 2007; 21:1235-7.
  26. Feldman DL. Prevention of retained surgical items. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 2011; 78(6):865-71.