Real time ultrasound in the assessment of intraocular foreign bodies

Bryden, F.; Pyott, A.; Bailey, Michael R.; McGhee, Charles N J

doi:10.1038/eye.1990.103

Cited by 72 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The sensitivity of plain orbital X-rays in these cases has been the subject of investigation in the past, with previous reports indicating that radiopaque foreign bodies are detected by plain X-ray radiography in 70-90% of cases. 2,4 Of note, failure of plain X-ray to detect an IOFB is a well-recognized phenomenon, and reflects the variable sizes, compositions, and locations of IOFBs. [5][6][7] Interestingly, 87% of the plain orbital X-rays undertaken in this study were performed in the absence of clinically evident ocular penetration, with a yield False positive result, and it was deemed that no further radiological investigations or management were indicated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Finally, if a non-radiopaque IOFB is still strongly suspected following negative CT imaging, other imaging modalities such as ocular ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging may need to be considered. 4,13,14 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…4,7,8 Moreover, the use of ultrasound biomicroscopy has also been found by several investigators to be significantly better in identifying intraocular foreign bodies compared with X-ray. [9][10][11] In fact, ultrasound has even been reported to detect intraocular foreign bodies in several instances when CT scanning failed to do so. 10,11 To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that we are aware of in which the efficacy of plain film radiographs as a diagnostic test for retained surgical needles was evaluated experimentally.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of portable X-ray in identifying retained suture needles in ophthalmologic cases

Kieval

Walsh

Legutko³

et al. 2008

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To evaluate the role and efficacy of portable X-ray in reliably identifying retained suture needles in ophthalmologic surgical cases. Methods Ophthalmologic 10À0 nylon suture needles were placed into 10 of 20 porcine eyes positioned within the orbit of a human skull. Portable, plain film radiographs were taken of all eyes with a C-arm fluoroscopy machine. The films were reviewed by six ophthalmologists and six radiologists who were blinded to the presence or absence of needles, as well as the number of needles used in the protocol. The sensitivity and specificity of identifying retained suture needles by plain film radiographs were then analysed based on the results of the physicians' interpretations of the films. Results The overall sensitivity and specificity for physicians reviewing radiographs with suspected intraoperative suture needles were 54 and 77%, respectively. When looking separately at radiologists reviewing the films, the sensitivity was 57% and the specificity was 87%. Ophthalmologists reviewing the films identified retained needles less reliably with a sensitivity of 51% and a specificity of 67%. Conclusions Significant controversy exists regarding the reliability and utility of plain film radiography in identifying intraocular foreign bodies. This study demonstrates that the use of plain film radiographs to rule-out the presence of an intraocular surgical needle is neither a sensitive nor specific imaging modality.

show abstract

“…The overall detection rate of foreign bodies for plain X-rays has been reported as low as 40% with particularly poor pick-up rates for graphite, wood, and perspex. 2 Metallic foreign bodies can also be missed. 2,3 This is an important issue when considering screening before MRI scanning, as ocular damage has been reported if a metallic IOFB is undetected.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Metallic foreign bodies can also be missed. 2,3 This is an important issue when considering screening before MRI scanning, as ocular damage has been reported if a metallic IOFB is undetected. The movement of the metallic fragment within the magnetic field has been found to cause problems such as cataract and hyphaema.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%