Literature DB >> 20100917

Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography.

M H Aras1, O Miloglu, C Barutcugil, M Kantarci, E Ozcan, A Harorli.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, CT and ultrasonography in in vitro models.
METHODS: Seven different materials were selected as foreign bodies with dimensions of approximately 1 x 1 x 0.1 cm. These materials were metal, glass, wood, stone, acrylic, graphite and Bakelite. These foreign bodies were placed into a sheep's head between the corpus mandible and muscle, in the tongue and in the maxillary sinus. Conventional plain radiography, CT and ultrasonography imaging methods were compared to investigate their sensitivity for detecting these foreign bodies.
RESULTS: Metal, glass and stone can be detected with all the visualization techniques used in the study in all of the zones. In contrast to this, foreign bodies with low radiopacity, which could be detected in air with CT, became less visible or almost invisible in muscle tissue and between bone and muscle tissue. The performance of ultrasonography for visualizing foreign bodies with low radiopacity is relatively better than CT.
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography detects and localizes superficial foreign bodies with low radiopacity in the tissues of the body more effectively than CT and conventional plain radiography. However, CT is a more effective technique for visualization of foreign bodies in air than ultrasound and conventional plain radiography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20100917      PMCID: PMC3520196          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/68589458

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  9 in total

1.  Plain film, CT and MRI sensibility in the evaluation of intraorbital foreign bodies in an in vitro model of the orbit and in pig eyes.

Authors:  R Lagalla; L Manfrè; A Caronia; F Bencivinni; C Duranti; F Ponte
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  The comparative accuracy of radiolucent foreign body detection using ultrasonography.

Authors:  M Orlinsky; P Knittel; T Feit; L Chan; D Mandavia
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.469

Review 3.  Foreign bodies.

Authors:  Tim B Hunter; Mihra S Taljanovic
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.333

4.  Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography.

Authors:  G Eggers; D Mukhamadiev; S Hassfeld
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  Conventional radiographs: are they still the standard in localization of projectiles?

Authors:  Philipp Stockmann; Eleftherios Vairaktaris; Matthias Fenner; Christian Tudor; Friedrich Wilhelm Neukam; Emeka Nkenke
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod       Date:  2007-08-20

6.  X-ray-based volumetric imaging of foreign bodies: a comparison of computed tomography and digital volume tomography.

Authors:  Georg Eggers; Thomas Welzel; Damir Mukhamadiev; René Wörtche; Stefan Hassfeld; Joachim Mühling
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.895

7.  Ultrasound versus radiography in the detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies.

Authors:  D E Manthey; A B Storrow; J M Milbourn; B J Wagner
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 5.721

8.  Wooden foreign bodies in soft tissue: detection at US.

Authors:  J A Jacobson; A Powell; J G Craig; J A Bouffard; M T van Holsbeeck
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Visibility of foreign bodies in soft tissue in plain radiographs, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound. An in vitro study.

Authors:  K S Oikarinen; T M Nieminen; H Mäkäräinen; J Pyhtinen
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.789

  9 in total
  36 in total

1.  Stone foreign body--radiographic and CT appearance.

Authors:  Zeev V Maizlin; Patrick M Vos; Alex Lee; Nida S Syed; Rahul S Anaspure; Jung Y Mah; Jason J Clement
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2012-03-15

2.  Intranasal foreign body mimicking a fat-containing lesion.

Authors:  Ruby Lukse; Douglas Walled; Mark Raden; Jeremy Neuman
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2013-11-01

3.  Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study.

Authors:  R Javadrashid; D F Fouladi; M Golamian; P Hajalioghli; M H Daghighi; Z Shahmorady; M T Niknejad
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Management of wooden foreign bodies in craniofacial region.

Authors:  Kamaraj Loganathan; James P Chacko; B S Saravanan; Bindu Vaithilingam
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2012-10-27

5.  Comparison of Ultrasonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Detection of Foreign Bodies in Maxillofacial Region.

Authors:  Abbas Shokri; Mohammadreza Jamalpour; Behrouz Jafariyeh; Jalal Poorolajal; Negar Kanouni Sabet
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-04-01

6.  Implementation of a miniaturised navigation system in head and neck surgery for the detection and removal of foreign bodies.

Authors:  K J Lorenz; A Böckers; U Fassnacht; F Wilde; M Wegener
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Ultrasound-guided removal of hypopharyngeal foreign body in the emergency department.

Authors:  Nadia Maria Shaukat; Alexis Lenz; Poonam Desai
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2017-04-21

8.  Soft Tissue Foreign Body: Utility of High Resolution Ultrasonography.

Authors:  Rudresh Hiremath; Harish Reddy; Jebin Ibrahim; C H Haritha; Rushit Sandeep Shah
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-07-01

9.  Anorectal emergencies.

Authors:  Varut Lohsiriwat
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Imaging of foreign bodies: a radiological conundrum.

Authors:  Michael Thomas; Aadil Mumith; Yaser Ghani
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2017-10-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.