July 1996, VOLUME 167
NUMBER 1

Recommend & Share

July 1996, Volume 167, Number 1

Evaluation of soft-tissue foreign bodies: comparing conventional plain film radiography, computed radiography printed on film, and computed radiography displayed on a computer workstation.

Citation: American Journal of Roentgenology. 1996;167: 141-144. 10.2214/ajr.167.1.8659358

ABSTRACT :

The study was performed to evaluate detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies using conventional radiography (film-screen radiography), computed radiography printed on films (computed radiography-hard copy), and computed radiography displayed on a computer workstation (computed radiography-soft copy).

Fifteen foreign bodies of different size, shape, and composition were implanted at different locations in a fresh cadaveric hand, and images were obtained using three radiographic techniques. Images were evaluated by four board-certified radiologists to ascertain the conspicuity of the foreign bodies with the different techniques. A subjective grade was assigned to each image in an attempt to identify the relative conspicuity of foreign bodies when imaged with the three techniques.

Computed radiography-soft copy is the preferred imaging technique for the detection of wood and plastic foreign bodies in soft tissue regardless of the size of the wood or the plastic. No significant differences in conspicuity among the three techniques were demonstrated with glass foreign bodies.

Detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies is best done using computed radiography-soft copy instead of film-screen radiography and computed radiography-hard copy imaging.

Recommended Articles

Evaluation of soft-tissue foreign bodies: comparing conventional plain film radiography, computed radiography printed on film, and computed radiography displayed on a computer workstation.

Full Access, , , , , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2014;203:W92-W102. 10.2214/AJR.13.11743
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1000 KB) | PDF Plus (1002 KB) | Supplemental Material 
Full Access, , , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2001;176:1155-1159. 10.2214/ajr.176.5.1761155
Citation | Full Text | PDF (647 KB) | PDF Plus (731 KB) 
Full Access, ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2002;178:557-562. 10.2214/ajr.178.3.1780557
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (7484 KB) | PDF Plus (7585 KB) 
Full Access, , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2014;203:37-53. 10.2214/AJR.13.12185
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1541 KB) | PDF Plus (1457 KB) 
Full Access,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;204:W393-W397. 10.2214/AJR.14.13126
Citation | Full Text | PDF (717 KB) | PDF Plus (680 KB) 
Full Access, , , , , , , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2000;174:75-80. 10.2214/ajr.174.1.1740075
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (86 KB) | PDF Plus (184 KB)