Assessment of intraocular foreign bodies by helical-CT multiplanar imaging

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of helical CT in the assessment of intraocular foreign bodies, evaluating two protocols with different collimation. We performed helical-CT studies in 30 patients. Fifteen patients were examined with 1.5-mm collimation and the other 15 patients with 3.0-mm collimation. All other imaging parameters were identical in both protocols. Multiplanar images were reconstructed. The examinations were reviewed for presence, localization and size of intraocular foreign bodies. We compare our results with the surgical data. We estimate the required examination time. In the first group (collimation 1.5 mm) an intraorbital foreign body was detected in 8 of 15 patients. In 3 of 8 patients an intraocular foreign body (all were metallic) was detected. In the second group (collimation 3.0 mm) an intraorbital foreign body was detected in 9 of 15 patients. In 8 of 9 patients an intraocular foreign body (all were metallic) was detected. Our results were confirmed by surgery in all cases. Examination time was 36 s in the first group and 18 s in the second group. Computed tomography should be considered the imaging modality of choice in the assessment of metallic intraocular foreign bodies and 3.0-mm collimation is optional, because of reduced examination time and radiation exposure.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography for the Detection and Characterization of Nonmetallic Intraocular Foreign Bodies

“…Computed tomography is accepted as the imaging modality of choice in detecting and localizing metallic IOFBs, 8,[17][18][19][22][23][24][25] and may even serve in evaluating their size and composition. 21 However, our review of the literature revealed no systematic evaluation of the assessment of nonmetallic IOFBs.…”

Occult nonmetallic intraocular foreign bodies presenting as fulminant uveitis: a case series and review of the literature

“…B-scan ultrasonography is frequently ordered in this setting as a first line imaging study but has a suboptimal sensitivity for echo lucent foreign bodies and can contribute to an erroneous diagnostic impression 5–8. Orbital computed tomography (CT) scan offers relatively high sensitivity for IOFBs, as has been reported by multiple investigators 5,9–11. However, the majority of evidence in favor of CT as the imaging modality of choice for detection of IOFB comes from reports of metallic or otherwise radio-opaque (glass or stone) foreign bodies.…”

Validation of an Algorithm for Nonmetallic Intraocular Foreign Bodies' Composition Identification Based on Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

“…18 Such eyes may also have an unusual initial presentation, which may potentially delay IOFB identification. 19 Computed tomography is the procedure of choice for metallic IOFBs, 6,[8][9][10][11][12]15,16,[20][21][22][23] but MRI has been shown to be superior to CT in the identification of nonmetallic IOFBs. 17,24 Ultrasonography may identify nonmetallic IOFBs, but it does not allow recognition of IOFB composition and has been shown to be unable to discern between metallic and nonmetallic IOFBs.…”