RESUMO
UNLABELLED: Gossypiboma imaging features are not well known and are often confused with soft tissue tumours. Publications on this topic mainly consist of case reports and small cohorts. Its appearance on various imaging modalities is not well defined. This led us to carry out a review of literature to determine specifically: (1) which imaging modalities should be used in cases of suspected gossypiboma, (2) what are the most common imaging findings that contribute to the diagnosis of gossypiboma. An exhaustive review of literature was carried out in June 2015 in the Medline, PubMed and Cochrane databases using the keywords "gossypiboma/textiloma/foreign body". We found 205 articles describing one or multiple cases of gossypiboma in various locations. Of these, the 32 articles that had imaging data were chosen - 16 for the limbs and 16 for other locations. The type of imaging carried out, description of the gossypiboma and circumstances of the discovery and occurrence were recorded. Descriptive statistics were generated to define the type of imaging used and the various findings. Imaging consisted of X-rays in 21/32 cases (66%), computed tomography (CT) in 14/32 cases (43%), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 21/32 cases (65%) and ultrasonography in 14/32 cases (43%). On X-rays, bone involvement was found in 9/15 cases (60%); there was peripheral contrast product uptake on the CT scans in 9/14 cases (64%), a hypointense signal on T1-weighted sequences on MRI in 6/13 cases (46%) and lack of vascularisation in 8/13 cases (62%) and a acoustic shadow on ultrasonography in 9/14 cases (64%). In a patient presenting with a soft tissue lump and history of surgery, an imaging work-up including X-rays, ultrasonography and MRI must be performed. Bone involvement on X-rays, acoustic shadowing on ultrasonography and hypointense signal on T1-weighted MRI sequences with lack of vascularisation in combination with a history of surgery can bring up the possibility of gossypiboma. If there is a possibility of soft tissue tumour, the case should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting and a biopsy should be performed first. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV - systematic analysis of published retrospective studies.