title: Radiology of foreign bodies: how do we image them?
abstract: To assess the sensitivity of detecting the most commonly encountered foreign bodies in Emergency Radiology using all imaging modalities (conventional radiography, computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging). The following materials were inserted into a pig-leg phantom and imaged using conventional radiography, computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging: Plastics #1, 2, 3, 5, and compostable plastic; dry and wet wood, aluminum, gravel, glass (tinted and non-tinted), and Salmon and Halibut fish bones. The visibility of plastic is variable on both conventional radiography and computed tomography, depending on composition, but all types of plastic are well visualized on ultrasound. Wood is most easily identified and localized on both computed tomography and ultrasound, is only faintly visible on conventional radiography, and is not well visualized on magnetic resonance imaging. Gravel, glass, and aluminum are well visualized on all modalities, with the exception of magnetic resonance imaging, where there is significant artifact surrounding the foreign body. Fish bones (Halibut and Salmon) are well visualized on conventional radiography, computed tomography, and ultrasound. Conventional radiography and computed tomography are great modalities for detecting foreign bodies of various compositions. Computed tomography is particularly useful at localizing the foreign body and determining its relationship to surrounding structures and its depth of involvement. All foreign bodies are visualized on ultrasound if the location is known and the foreign body is in the plane of the transducer. Magnetic resonance imaging is not helpful in detecting foreign bodies.
authors: University of Washington - Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue, Box 359728, Seattle, WA, 98104-2499, USA.
authors: Christopher R
authors: CR
authors: Ingraham
authors: Lorenzo
authors: L
authors: Mannelli
authors: Jeffrey D
authors: JD
authors: Robinson
authors: Ken F
authors: KF
authors: Linnau
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D003952:Diagnostic Imaging; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital; D005547:Foreign Bodies / Q000175:diagnosis*; D006614:Hindlimb; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013552:Swine
references: Emerg Radiol. 2012 Aug;19(4):317-22
references: 22419058
references: Emerg Radiol. 2007 Apr;14 (1):41-3
references: 17347767
references: Emerg Radiol. 2004 Jul;10 (6):337-9
references: 15278719
references: Pediatr Radiol. 2013 Sep;43(9):1103-7
references: 23576014
references: Emerg Radiol. 2005 Dec;12 (1-2):30-3
references: 16322976
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Mar;178(3):557-62
references: 11856673
references: Presse Med. 2005 Feb 12;34(3):256
references: 15798541
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996 Jan;17(1):134-6
references: 8770264
references: Emerg Radiol. 2004 Dec;11(2):95-9
references: 15517455
references: Eur Radiol. 2009 May;19(5):1273-9
references: 19153745
references: Surv Ophthalmol. 1992 Mar-Apr;36(5):341-4
references: 1566235
references: Emerg Radiol. 2005 Jun;11(4):247-9
references: 16133616
references: Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2006 Nov;10 (6):415-8
references: 17006674
references: MMW Fortschr Med. 2010 Mar 11;152(10 ):38-40
references: 20380233
references: J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Sep;69(9):2376-82
references: 21371800