AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Murphy, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Brunberg, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Murphy, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Brunberg, J. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 167, 1053-1055, Copyright © 1996 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Orbital plain films as a prerequisite for MR imaging: is a known history of injury a sufficient screening criterion?

KJ Murphy and JA Brunberg
Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor 48109-0030, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Before undergoing MR imaging at our institution, all patients with potential occupational, recreational, or educational exposure or known accidental exposure to kinetic metal fragments have orbital radiographs to evaluate for the continued presence of intraorbital metallic foreign bodies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential safety of a protocol that would call for obtaining plain films of the orbit before MR imaging only for patients with a definite history of a known metallic foreign body in the eye or orbit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2626 patients underwent plain radiography of the orbit to exclude metallic foreign bodies before MR imaging between March 1991 and January 1995. These patients were identified by a billing code number. Reports from these studies, all interpreted by board-certified radiologists, were reviewed. When a metallic foreign body was detected, we reviewed the patient's response during the initial interview when asked about a history of orbital injury or surgery. RESULTS: Of 2626 patients undergoing orbital radiographic studies, 17 (0.65%) had radiographic evidence of intraorbital metallic foreign bodies. Sixteen of these patients gave a history of known injury or had knowledge of probable orbital metallic fragments. The remaining patient, a welder screened because of occupational history, had a 3 x 1 mm metallic foreign body in his left orbit without a history of injury. CONCLUSION: Screening plain films of the orbit are necessary when a patient has a history of a known intraocular or periorbital foreign body or when a patient has a history of occupational exposure to potential metallic ocular injury, as do welders, grinders, and metalworkers.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch OphthalmolHome page
C. A. Grant and P. A. D. Rubin
An Infratemporal Fossa Foreign Body Presents as an Infraorbital Mass
Arch Ophthalmol, July 1, 2000; 118(7): 993 - 995.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
D. J. Seidenwurm, C. H. McDonnell III, N. Raghavan, and J. Breslau
Cost Utility Analysis of Radiographic Screening for an Orbital Foreign Body before MR Imaging
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., February 1, 2000; 21(2): 426 - 433.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.