TY - JOUR
T1 - Multimodal imaging features of intraocular foreign bodies
AU - Rong, Andrew J.
AU - Fan, Kenneth C.
AU - Golshani, Behrad
AU - Bobinski, Matthew
AU - McGahan, John P.
AU - Eliott, Dean
AU - Morse, Lawrence S.
AU - Modjtahedi, Bobeck S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
©, © Taylor & Francis.
PY - 2019/11/17
Y1 - 2019/11/17
N2 - Objective: To determine the imaging approach for evaluating intraocular foreign bodies (IOFBs) by comparing the ability of different modalities [plain film x-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonsance imaging (MRI), convetional ultrasound, and ultrasound biomicroscopy] to detect and characterize IOFBs. Methods & Design: Systematic review of the literature. Results: CT is the most practical first step for evaluating patients with suspected IOFBs because it can detect a wide range of IOFB types at small limitis of detection. MRI and ultrasound are best reserved as adjunctive tests in most cases although these tests may provide important insights especially with wood, plastic, and glass IOFBs. Imaging characteristics of metal, wood, glass, plastic, stone, concrete, and graphite IOFBs are reviewed. Conclusion: Understanding the limits of detection for each IOFB type and imaging modality as well as the characteristic features of different IOFBs is of paramount importance to optimizing the management of ocular trauma patients.
AB - Objective: To determine the imaging approach for evaluating intraocular foreign bodies (IOFBs) by comparing the ability of different modalities [plain film x-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonsance imaging (MRI), convetional ultrasound, and ultrasound biomicroscopy] to detect and characterize IOFBs. Methods & Design: Systematic review of the literature. Results: CT is the most practical first step for evaluating patients with suspected IOFBs because it can detect a wide range of IOFB types at small limitis of detection. MRI and ultrasound are best reserved as adjunctive tests in most cases although these tests may provide important insights especially with wood, plastic, and glass IOFBs. Imaging characteristics of metal, wood, glass, plastic, stone, concrete, and graphite IOFBs are reviewed. Conclusion: Understanding the limits of detection for each IOFB type and imaging modality as well as the characteristic features of different IOFBs is of paramount importance to optimizing the management of ocular trauma patients.
KW - Imaging;intraocular foreign bodies
KW - attenuation coefficients
KW - computed tomography
KW - magnetic resonance imaging
KW - ruptured globes
KW - trauma
KW - ultrasound
KW - ultrasound biomicroscopy
KW - x-ray
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074330145&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074330145&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/08820538.2019.1674894
DO - 10.1080/08820538.2019.1674894
M3 - Review article
C2 - 31609153
AN - SCOPUS:85074330145
SN - 0882-0538
VL - 34
SP - 518
EP - 532
JO - Seminars in Ophthalmology
JF - Seminars in Ophthalmology
IS - 7-8
ER -