Computed Tomographic Three-Dimensional Localization and Compositional Evaluation of Intraocular and Orbital Foreign Bodies

Sj, Zinreich; Nr, Miller; Jb, Aguayo; Quinn, Cynthia B.; Hadfield, R.; Ae, Rosenbaum

doi:10.1001/archopht.1986.01050220071029

Cited by 44 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We concluded that, it was not possible to distinguish the different materials by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging techniques as reported previously [4,12,13].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the detection and localization of intraocular foreign bodies

et al. 1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this experimental study, various foreign bodies were inserted into fresh bovine eyes, in different localizations. Twenty-one magnetic and non-magnetic foreign bodies, dimensions of which varied from 1.5 x 1.5 x 2 mm to 3.5 x 6 x 7 mm, were tried to detect by computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning. In addition, further dissections were applied to check the ocular damage attributable to movement of the foreign bodies. Ferromagnetic foreign bodies have been shown to move in the eye and the risk of torsional forces being applied to the ferromagnetic foreign body seemed to cause intraocular complications during MRI scanning. All of the foreign bodies that were implanted in bovine eyes were recognized on CT scanning, except intraocular lenses. As a general rule, metallic foreign bodies produced beam-hardening artifacts, but these artifacts did not cause any problem in detecting the localizations of foreign bodies.

show abstract

“…We concluded that, it was not possible to distinguish the different materials by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging techniques as reported previously [4,12,13].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the detection and localization of intraocular foreign bodies

et al. 1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous reports have shown that CT orbital imaging is superior to orbital plain X-ray orbital radiography for the detection and localization of IOFBs, although CT is associated with greater exposure to radiation than plain X-ray radiography. [8][9][10] In contrast to plain X-ray orbital radiography, the majority (12; 57%) of orbital CT scans in our study were performed on patients with clinically evident ocular penetration. However, five (42%) of these cases had a clinically visible IOFB and radiological confirmation of the IOFB on plain X-rays of the orbit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Plain X-ray and computed tomography of the orbit in cases and suspected cases of intraocular foreign body

Saeed

Cassidy

Malone

et al. 2007

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To evaluate the roles of plain X-ray and computed tomography (CT) orbital imaging in cases and suspected cases of intraocular foreign body (IOFB). Methods Retrospective review of clinical and radiological data relating to 204 consecutive cases and suspected cases of IOFB. Setting Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. Results Plain X-rays were performed in the absence of clinically evident ocular penetration in 177 (87%) cases, and no IOFB was demonstrated in any of these radiographs. Twenty-seven (13%) plain X-ray radiographs were obtained in the presence of clinically evident ocular penetration, and an IOFB was clinically visible in 19 (70%) of these cases. CT scans were undertaken in 21 (10%) of the 204 patients. Of these CT images, 9 (43%) and 12 (57%) were undertaken in the absence and presence of clinically evident ocular penetration, respectively. None (0%) and all (100%) of the CT scans obtained in the absence and presence of clinically evident ocular penetration demonstrated an IOFB, respectively. Conclusion Plain X-ray and CT orbital imaging are non-contributory in the absence of clinically evident ocular penetration. In the presence of clinically evident ocular penetration, and where an IOFB is clinically visible, plain X-ray orbital radiography may have a role in excluding multiple IOFBs. In the presence of clinically evident ocular penetration, but where an IOFB is not clinically visible, CT orbital imaging remains the investigation of choice, and the role of pre-CT plain X-ray orbital radiography, as recommended by the guidelines of the Royal College of Radiologists, merits re-evaluation.

show abstract

“…Exact localization of intraocular and episcleral foreign bodies represented a difficult problem with conventional CT often necessitating scanning independently in the axial and coronal planes [6,7]. Helical CT has overcome this problem, because high-quality reconstructed images can be obtained from the data set in the axial plane [9,10,11,12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

IntroductionConventional CT in the axial and coronal planes has been regarded for a long time the optional method for the detection and localization of intraocular foreign bodies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]; however, recent experimental studies in a model of steel intraocular foreign body have shown that helical CT provides axial images of high quality (comparable to that of conventional CT) [9]. Multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images of similar high quality were also obtained in models of metallic and non-metallic intraocular foreign bodies [10].

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of intraocular foreign bodies by helical-CT multiplanar imaging

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Computed Tomographic Three-Dimensional Localization and Compositional Evaluation of Intraocular and Orbital Foreign Bodies

Cited by 44 publications

References 6 publications

Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the detection and localization of intraocular foreign bodies

Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the detection and localization of intraocular foreign bodies

Plain X-ray and computed tomography of the orbit in cases and suspected cases of intraocular foreign body

Assessment of intraocular foreign bodies by helical-CT multiplanar imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About