» Articles » PMID: 20100917

Comparison of the Sensitivity for Detecting Foreign Bodies Among Conventional Plain Radiography, Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography

Overview
Date 2010 Jan 27
PMID 20100917
Citations 52
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Identifying glass foreign bodies using conventional X-ray in a gelatinous model.

Hammoud S, Tishkowski K, Hammad A, Barbat J, Cohen A, Brenner B World J Emerg Med. 2025; 16(1):71-73.

PMID: 39906106 PMC: 11788108. DOI: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2025.002.


Uncommon cause of chest pain: Case report of esophageal foreign body diagnosed by chest computed tomography scan.

Taheriniya A, Safaie H, Rozveh J, Azizmanesh M, Chaghamirzayi P Radiol Case Rep. 2024; 20(1):162-165.

PMID: 39469601 PMC: 11513788. DOI: 10.1016/j.radcr.2024.09.122.


Diagnosis and treatment intraorbital foreign body: A case report.

Zhao H, Feng H, Du L Clin Case Rep. 2024; 12(5):e8733.

PMID: 38689682 PMC: 11060878. DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.8733.


Musculoskeletal infections through direct inoculation.

Sabir N, Akkaya Z Skeletal Radiol. 2024; 53(10):2161-2179.

PMID: 38291151 PMC: 11371867. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-024-04591-w.


Imaging of lower extremity infections: predisposing conditions, atypical infections, mimics, and differentiating features.

Matcuk Jr G, Katal S, Gholamrezanezhad A, Spinnato P, Waldman L, Fields B Skeletal Radiol. 2024; 53(10):2099-2120.

PMID: 38240759 PMC: 11371866. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-024-04589-4.


References
1.
Oikarinen K, Nieminen T, Makarainen H, Pyhtinen J . Visibility of foreign bodies in soft tissue in plain radiographs, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound. An in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993; 22(2):119-24. DOI: 10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80818-5. View

2.
Hunter T, Taljanovic M . Foreign bodies. Radiographics. 2003; 23(3):731-57. DOI: 10.1148/rg.233025137. View

3.
Manthey D, Storrow A, Milbourn J, Wagner B . Ultrasound versus radiography in the detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies. Ann Emerg Med. 1996; 28(1):7-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70130-0. View

4.
Eggers G, Mukhamadiev D, Hassfeld S . Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005; 34(2):74-9. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/22475468. View

5.
Orlinsky M, Knittel P, Feit T, Chan L, Mandavia D . The comparative accuracy of radiolucent foreign body detection using ultrasonography. Am J Emerg Med. 2000; 18(4):401-3. DOI: 10.1053/ajem.2000.7315. View