Angela D Levy1, H Theodore Harcke. 1. Department of Radiologic Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 6825 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20306, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether a portable handheld ultrasound device can be used to visualize non-opaque and semi-opaque foreign bodies in soft tissues and to characterize their sonographic appearance. METHODS: Twenty-two fragments composed of various natural and man-made materials and ranging from 4 to 20 mm in the maximum longitudinal dimension were embedded into 2 thawed turkey breasts. Two sonographers who were unaware of the number, dimensions, and locations of the fragments used a handheld ultrasound device to detect and characterize the fragments on the basis of their surface echogenicity and acoustic shadowing. The sonographic appearance of each fragment was compared with its actual characteristics. RESULTS: All 22 embedded fragments were successfully identified and localized on sonography. Surface echogenicity and acoustic shadowing varied among the fragments. For some fragments, the sonographically measured maximum longitudinal dimension differed substantially from the actual dimension. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a portable handheld ultrasound device is effective for the detection of foreign bodies with a diameter greater than 4 mm in soft tissues. The sonographic appearances of non-opaque and semi-opaque foreign bodies vary in their patterns of surface echogenicity and acoustic shadowing. Copyright 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 31:183-188, 2003
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether a portable handheld ultrasound device can be used to visualize non-opaque and semi-opaque foreign bodies in soft tissues and to characterize their sonographic appearance. METHODS: Twenty-two fragments composed of various natural and man-made materials and ranging from 4 to 20 mm in the maximum longitudinal dimension were embedded into 2 thawed turkey breasts. Two sonographers who were unaware of the number, dimensions, and locations of the fragments used a handheld ultrasound device to detect and characterize the fragments on the basis of their surface echogenicity and acoustic shadowing. The sonographic appearance of each fragment was compared with its actual characteristics. RESULTS: All 22 embedded fragments were successfully identified and localized on sonography. Surface echogenicity and acoustic shadowing varied among the fragments. For some fragments, the sonographically measured maximum longitudinal dimension differed substantially from the actual dimension. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a portable handheld ultrasound device is effective for the detection of foreign bodies with a diameter greater than 4 mm in soft tissues. The sonographic appearances of non-opaque and semi-opaque foreign bodies vary in their patterns of surface echogenicity and acoustic shadowing. Copyright 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 31:183-188, 2003