Do we really need plain and soft-tissue radiographies to detect radiolucent foreign bodies in the ED? - 17/08/11
, Hakan Topacoglu, MD a, Sedat Yanturali, MD a, Selahattin Kiyan, MD a, Neslihan Kabakci, MD b, Seyran Bozkurt, MD a, Arif Alper Cevik, MD cAbstract |
Objective |
The objective of this study was to compare 3 imaging techniques—plain radiography, soft-tissue radiography, and ultrasonography—in detecting nonradiopaque foreign bodies in soft tissue.
Methods |
In this randomized, blinded, and descriptive in vitro study, 40 chicken thighs with 2 types of nonradiopaque foreign bodies (wood and rubber) and 40 chicken thighs as part of a control group were evaluated to detect soft-tissue foreign bodies with plain radiography, soft-tissue radiography, and high-frequency ultrasonography.
Results |
The overall sensitivity, specificity, as well as positive predictive and negative predictive values of plain radiography for both nonradiopaque foreign bodies were 5%, 90%, 33%, and 48%, respectively; those of soft-tissue radiography for both nonradiopaque foreign bodies were 5%, 90%, 33%, and 48%, respectively; and those of ultrasonography for both nonradiopaque foreign bodies were 90%, 80%, 81%, and 89%, respectively.
Conclusions |
In this experimental model, the results show that high-frequency ultrasonography is superior to plain and soft-tissue radiographies and that the latter 2 techniques are similarly poor at detecting nonradiopaque foreign bodies.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Vol 24 - N° 7
P. 763-768 - novembre 2006 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Manuscript Submission and Editorial Review Policy
- Tracheal intubation by inexperienced medical residents using the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes—a manikin study
- Chrisen H. Maharaj, Martina Ni Chonghaile, Brendan D. Higgins, Brian H. Harte, John G. Laffey
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?