Efficiency of different imaging methods in detecting ocular foreign bodies

Background Ocular foreign bodies (OFBs) are a relatively common occurrence in ocular injuries, and a severe risk factor for vision disorders. They are notoriously challenging to identify and localize precisely to allow surgical removal, even with the most recent technological advancements. Purpose T...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical physics (Lancaster) 2024-04, Vol.51 (4), p.3124-3129
Hauptverfasser: Cheng, Tongjie, Zhao, Hongmei, Chen, Qian, Wang, Shenjiang, Jiang, Chunhui
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Ocular foreign bodies (OFBs) are a relatively common occurrence in ocular injuries, and a severe risk factor for vision disorders. They are notoriously challenging to identify and localize precisely to allow surgical removal, even with the most recent technological advancements. Purpose To compare the efficiency of different imaging methods in detecting and localizing OFBs. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with OFBs, detected by ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) and confirmed during surgery. Patients who presented to our medical center between January 2016 and January 2022 and also underwent computed tomography (CT), X ray, and/or ocular B‐scan ultrasonography (B‐scans) were selected. Results This study included 134 patients with a history of ocular trauma and OFBs (mean age: 47.25 years, range: 8–78). The mean time interval from injury to UBM examination was 36.31 months (range: 0.2–120 months). Most OFBs were metallic (51.82%) or plant‐based (25.37%); 22.39% of them were located in the sclera, 26.87% in the anterior chamber, and 23.88% in the ciliary body and iris. OFBs ranged in size from 0.10 to 6.67 mm (mean: 1.15 ± 1.10 mm). B‐scans identified OFBs in 37 of the 119 patients examined (31.09%); CT in 52 of 84 patients (61.90%); and radiography in 29 of 50 patients (58.00%). Univariate and multivariate analyses determined that both CT and radiography showed low detection rates for plant‐based versus non‐plant‐based OFBs (CT: p 
ISSN:0094-2405
2473-4209
DOI:10.1002/mp.16818