Computerized Axial Tomography in the Detection of Intraocular Foreign Bodies

Lobes, Louis A.; Grand, M. Gilbert; Reece, John; Penkrot, R.J.

doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(81)35079-9

Cited by 20 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If there is opacification of the mediae, which precludes a view of the fundus, radiography, CT or ultrasound can help to localise the IOFB.4 Radiography can be negative in the presence of an IOFB and it is in these cases that a CT scan is helpful. 4 Complete IOFB resorption with progressive siderotic degeneration can occur, as was the case with one of our patients.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Ocular siderosis

Hope-Ross

Mahon

Johnston

1993

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Ocular siderosis

Hope-Ross

Mahon

Johnston

1993

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…C linical management of metallic orbital foreign bodies depends on anatomic location and on the presence or absence of concomitant bone and soft tissue injuries. Imaging of metallic foreign bodies with conventional CT is widely accepted (Finkelstein et al 1997;Lobes et al 1981;Tate & Cupples 1981;Grove 1982;Topilow et al 1984;Zinnreich et al 1986), but requires scanning in both the axial and coronal planes. This necessitates repositioning of the patient's head during the examination and, thus, results in increased scanning time and increased radiation exposure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Helical and conventional CT in the imaging of metallic foreign bodies in the orbit

Lakits¹,

Prokesch

Scholda³

et al. 2000

Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Purpose: To compare helical CT to conventional CT imaging in the assessment of orbital metallic foreign bodies with regard to image quality, scanning time, and radiation exposure. Methods: Twenty-four standardized metallic foreign bodies, placed into the orbit (anterior, epibulbar, posterior) of cadaver heads were studied. Helical CT scanning in the axial plane with multiplanar reconstruction of coronal and sagittal images was performed as well as conventional CT imaging with direct scanning in the axial and the coronal planes (Tomoscan SR 7000, Philips, The Netherlands). Two masked observers consensually graded the studies using 5 predetermined criteria. Radiation dose delivered to the lens and scanning time were measured for the helical and the conventional CT imaging workup. Results: Helical CT imaging scored statistically significantly better with regard to overall accuracy of foreign body localization and presence of beam-hardening streak artifacts from dental fillings. Conventional CT scored significantly better with regard to stair-step artifacts. The radiation dose delivered to the lens was 35.4 mGy for helical CT imaging and 73.9 mGy for conventional CT workup (axial and coronal scanning). Total scanning time was 18 seconds for helical CT axial scanning and 104 seconds for conventional CT axial and coronal scanning. Conclusion: Helical CT is superior to conventional CT imaging, because it can provide adequate information about orbital metallic foreign bodies with a single acquisition, thus reducing both the number of examinations and the radiation exposure for the patient.

show abstract

“…Many such institutions (93%) routinely screen patients using questionnaires assessing their participation in metal working, welding or other activities which may increase their risk for intraocular ferromagnetic FB [3]. Those patients deemed to have the potential for retained intraocular ferromagnetic particles may be further screened by one or more of the following diagnostic modalities: orbital plain film radiography; orbital CT (conventional axial, helical, or spiral techniques); ocular and orbital ultrasound; ocular ultrasound biomicroscopy [3,4,10,19,20,21,34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%