Ultrasound versus radiography in the detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies

被引:84
|
作者
Manthey, DE
Storrow, AB
Milbourn, JM
Wagner, BJ
机构
[1] JOINT MIL MED CTR EMERGENCY MED RESIDENCY,SAN ANTONIO,TX
[2] WILFORD HALL USAF MED CTR,DEPT RADIOL,SAN ANTONIO,TX 78236
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70130-0
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Study objective: To determine the usefulness of ultrasound and radiography in detecting foreign bodies in soft-tissue models closely duplicating puncture-wound trauma and hand anatomy. Methods: In this randomized, blinded descriptive study, two radiologists independently evaluated 120 chicken thighs for foreign bodies with the use of standard two-view radiography and 7.5-MHz transducer ultrasonography. All chicken thighs were manipulated with hemostats to ensure uniform tissue damage. In 60 thighs, one foreign body had been inserted (10 each: gravel, metal, glass, cactus spine, wood, and plastic). Results: The sensitivity of ultrasound in detecting gravel was 40%, that for metal was 45%, that for glass was 50%, that for cactus spine was 30%, that for wood was 50%, and that for plastic was 40%. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative and false-positive rates for ultrasound were 43%, 70%, 50%, and 30%, respectively. No individual foreign body had an ultrasound detection rate of 50%. Radiography detected foreign bodies generally considered radiopaque (gravel, glass, metal) 98% of the time, but it never detected bodies considered radiolucent (wood, plastic, cactus spine). The false-negative and false-positive rates for radiography were 50% and 1.6%, respectively. Conclusion: Ultrasound detection of foreign bodies by skilled operators in this animal model revealed poor sensitivity and specificity. Radiographic detection was highly sensitive for foreign bodies considered radiopaque. Our data suggest that ultrasound should not be relied on to rule out the po retained foreign body in the distal extremities.
引用
收藏
页码:7 / 9
页数:3
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Computed radiography versus indirect digital radiography for the detection of glass soft-tissue foreign bodies
    Sheridan, N.
    McNulty, J. P.
    RADIOGRAPHY, 2016, 22 (03) : 223 - 227
  • [2] Sonography and radiography of soft-tissue foreign bodies
    Horton, LK
    Jacobson, JA
    Powell, A
    Fessell, DP
    Hayes, CW
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2001, 176 (05) : 1155 - 1159
  • [3] THE DETECTION OF FOREIGN-BODIES IN SOFT-TISSUE - COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY
    ROOBOTTOM, CA
    WESTON, MJ
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 1994, 49 (05) : 330 - 332
  • [4] Ultrasound compared with projection radiography for the detection of soft tissue foreign bodies - A technical note
    Grocutt, H.
    Davies, R.
    Heales, C.
    RADIOGRAPHY, 2023, 29 (06) : 1007 - 1010
  • [5] SOFT-TISSUE RADIOGRAPHY FOR WOODEN FOREIGN-BODIES - A WORTHWHILE EXERCISE
    MUCCI, B
    STENHOUSE, G
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 1985, 16 (06): : 402 - 404
  • [6] IDENTIFICATION OF WOODEN FOREIGN-BODIES IN SOFT-TISSUE BY ULTRASOUND
    BAUMGARTEN, C
    SCHNEBLE, F
    TROGER, J
    ULTRASCHALL IN DER MEDIZIN, 1995, 16 (01): : 36 - 37
  • [7] INVITRO COMPARISON OF COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY, XERORADIOGRAPHY, AND RADIOGRAPHY IN THE DETECTION OF SOFT-TISSUE FOREIGN-BODIES
    KUHNS, LR
    BORLAZA, GS
    SEIGEL, RS
    PARAMAGUL, C
    BERGER, PE
    RADIOLOGY, 1979, 132 (01) : 218 - 219
  • [8] DETECTION OF SOFT-TISSUE FOREIGN-BODIES BY PLAIN RADIOGRAPHY, XEROGRAPHY, COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY, AND ULTRASONOGRAPHY
    GINSBURG, MJ
    ELLIS, GL
    FLOM, LL
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1990, 19 (06) : 701 - 703
  • [9] SOFT-TISSUE FOREIGN-BODIES
    LAMMERS, RL
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1988, 17 (12) : 1336 - 1347
  • [10] THE ULTRASONIC-DETECTION OF SOFT-TISSUE FOREIGN-BODIES
    LITTLE, CM
    PARKER, MG
    CALLOWICH, MC
    SARTORI, JC
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1986, 21 (03) : 275 - 277