Andrew J Rong1, Kenneth C Fan1, Behrad Golshani2, Matthew Bobinski3, John P McGahan3, Dean Eliott4, Lawrence S Morse5, Bobeck S Modjtahedi6,7,8. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA. 4. Retina Service, Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Baldwin Park, CA, USA. 7. Eye Monitoring Center, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Baldwin Park, CA, USA. 8. Department of Research and Evaluation, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the imaging approach for evaluating intraocular foreign bodies (IOFBs) by comparing the ability of different modalities [plain film x-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonsance imaging (MRI), convetional ultrasound, and ultrasound biomicroscopy] to detect and characterize IOFBs.Methods & Design: Systematic review of the literature. Results: CT is the most practical first step for evaluating patients with suspected IOFBs because it can detect a wide range of IOFB types at small limitis of detection. MRI and ultrasound are best reserved as adjunctive tests in most cases although these tests may provide important insights especially with wood, plastic, and glass IOFBs. Imaging characteristics of metal, wood, glass, plastic, stone, concrete, and graphite IOFBs are reviewed. Conclusion: Understanding the limits of detection for each IOFB type and imaging modality as well as the characteristic features of different IOFBs is of paramount importance to optimizing the management of ocular trauma patients.
Objective: To determine the imaging approach for evaluating intraocular foreign bodies (IOFBs) by comparing the ability of different modalities [plain film x-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonsance imaging (MRI), convetional ultrasound, and ultrasound biomicroscopy] to detect and characterize IOFBs.Methods & Design: Systematic review of the literature. Results: CT is the most practical first step for evaluating patients with suspected IOFBs because it can detect a wide range of IOFB types at small limitis of detection. MRI and ultrasound are best reserved as adjunctive tests in most cases although these tests may provide important insights especially with wood, plastic, and glass IOFBs. Imaging characteristics of metal, wood, glass, plastic, stone, concrete, and graphite IOFBs are reviewed. Conclusion: Understanding the limits of detection for each IOFB type and imaging modality as well as the characteristic features of different IOFBs is of paramount importance to optimizing the management of ocular traumapatients.
Authors: Meghana Kalavar; Alexandra Levitt; Nimesh A Patel; Kevin Clauss; Kenneth C Fan; Nicolas A Yannuzzi; Audina M Berrocal Journal: J Vitreoretin Dis Date: 2020-09-30
Authors: Shawn Gulati; Kurt A Hanebrink; Michael Henry; Monique Munro; R V Paul Chan; Deepak P Edward Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep Date: 2022-02-23