{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020028612303290415, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002145922746781116, 'mean_word_length': 5.725961538461538, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Latex allergy: accidental diagnosis after urological procedure. Case report].

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Allergy to natural rubber latex products has become a major source of concern, affecting both patients and healthcare workers. This report aimed at describing an accidental diagnosis of latex allergy after urological surgery under spinal anesthesia when patient presented clinical manifestations of anaphylactic shock.


CASE REPORT
Male patient, 16 years old, with posterior urethra lesion who had been managed for the last 3 years with chronic indwelling latex urethral catheter due to two previous unsuccessful attempts to restore urinary drainage. During surgery under spinal anesthesia, patient presented soon after peritoneal cavity exploration, confusion, dyspnea, generalized pruritus and erythema, bronchospasm, arterial hypotension and tachycardia. Clinical manifestations faded gradually after treatment. During hospital stay and after blowing a toy balloon, patient developed contact hives on the face and bronchospasm, which were promptly treated. Prick and serologic test for latex-specific IgE have confirmed the diagnostic hypothesis of latex allergy.


CONCLUSIONS
The combination of patients clinical history and lab findings have allowed for the identification of latex allergy. This entity is becoming highly relevant, especially for risk patients, as in this case report.