不同成像方法检测眼内异物的效率。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Medical physics Pub Date : 2023-12-06 DOI:10.1002/mp.16818
Tongjie Cheng, Hongmei Zhao, Qian Chen, Shenjiang Wang, Chunhui Jiang
{"title":"不同成像方法检测眼内异物的效率。","authors":"Tongjie Cheng,&nbsp;Hongmei Zhao,&nbsp;Qian Chen,&nbsp;Shenjiang Wang,&nbsp;Chunhui Jiang","doi":"10.1002/mp.16818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Ocular foreign bodies (OFBs) are a relatively common occurrence in ocular injuries, and a severe risk factor for vision disorders. They are notoriously challenging to identify and localize precisely to allow surgical removal, even with the most recent technological advancements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the efficiency of different imaging methods in detecting and localizing OFBs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with OFBs, detected by ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) and confirmed during surgery. Patients who presented to our medical center between January 2016 and January 2022 and also underwent computed tomography (CT), X ray, and/or ocular B-scan ultrasonography (B-scans) were selected.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>This study included 134 patients with a history of ocular trauma and OFBs (mean age: 47.25 years, range: 8–78). The mean time interval from injury to UBM examination was 36.31 months (range: 0.2–120 months). Most OFBs were metallic (51.82%) or plant-based (25.37%); 22.39% of them were located in the sclera, 26.87% in the anterior chamber, and 23.88% in the ciliary body and iris. OFBs ranged in size from 0.10 to 6.67 mm (mean: 1.15 ± 1.10 mm). B-scans identified OFBs in 37 of the 119 patients examined (31.09%); CT in 52 of 84 patients (61.90%); and radiography in 29 of 50 patients (58.00%). Univariate and multivariate analyses determined that both CT and radiography showed low detection rates for plant-based versus non-plant-based OFBs (CT: <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001; radiography: <i>p</i> = 0.007), small particles (&lt;1.00 mm vs. &gt;1.00 mm; CT: <i>p</i> = 0.001, radiography: <i>p</i> = 0.024), and with eyeball wall locations (vs. intraocular; CT: <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, radiography: <i>p</i> = 0.021). Similarly, B-scans were less efficient for plant-based and eyeball wall-located OFBs (both <i>p</i> = 0.001), whereas the difference based on dimensions was not significant (<i>p</i> = 0.118).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>CT, radiography, and B-scans showed lower detection rates for plant-based, small, and eyeball wall-located OFBs. Our findings strongly suggest that UBM could be a more adequate imaging modality when such OFBs are suspected.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18384,"journal":{"name":"Medical physics","volume":"51 4","pages":"3124-3129"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiency of different imaging methods in detecting ocular foreign bodies\",\"authors\":\"Tongjie Cheng,&nbsp;Hongmei Zhao,&nbsp;Qian Chen,&nbsp;Shenjiang Wang,&nbsp;Chunhui Jiang\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mp.16818\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Ocular foreign bodies (OFBs) are a relatively common occurrence in ocular injuries, and a severe risk factor for vision disorders. They are notoriously challenging to identify and localize precisely to allow surgical removal, even with the most recent technological advancements.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>To compare the efficiency of different imaging methods in detecting and localizing OFBs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with OFBs, detected by ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) and confirmed during surgery. Patients who presented to our medical center between January 2016 and January 2022 and also underwent computed tomography (CT), X ray, and/or ocular B-scan ultrasonography (B-scans) were selected.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study included 134 patients with a history of ocular trauma and OFBs (mean age: 47.25 years, range: 8–78). The mean time interval from injury to UBM examination was 36.31 months (range: 0.2–120 months). Most OFBs were metallic (51.82%) or plant-based (25.37%); 22.39% of them were located in the sclera, 26.87% in the anterior chamber, and 23.88% in the ciliary body and iris. OFBs ranged in size from 0.10 to 6.67 mm (mean: 1.15 ± 1.10 mm). B-scans identified OFBs in 37 of the 119 patients examined (31.09%); CT in 52 of 84 patients (61.90%); and radiography in 29 of 50 patients (58.00%). Univariate and multivariate analyses determined that both CT and radiography showed low detection rates for plant-based versus non-plant-based OFBs (CT: <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001; radiography: <i>p</i> = 0.007), small particles (&lt;1.00 mm vs. &gt;1.00 mm; CT: <i>p</i> = 0.001, radiography: <i>p</i> = 0.024), and with eyeball wall locations (vs. intraocular; CT: <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, radiography: <i>p</i> = 0.021). Similarly, B-scans were less efficient for plant-based and eyeball wall-located OFBs (both <i>p</i> = 0.001), whereas the difference based on dimensions was not significant (<i>p</i> = 0.118).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>CT, radiography, and B-scans showed lower detection rates for plant-based, small, and eyeball wall-located OFBs. Our findings strongly suggest that UBM could be a more adequate imaging modality when such OFBs are suspected.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical physics\",\"volume\":\"51 4\",\"pages\":\"3124-3129\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.16818\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.16818","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:眼异物(OFBs)在眼部损伤中较为常见,是视力障碍的严重危险因素。众所周知,即使有了最新的技术进步,也很难精确地识别和定位以进行手术切除。目的:比较不同成像方法对ofb的检测和定位效率。方法:回顾性分析经超声生物显微镜(UBM)检测并经手术证实的OFBs患者的病历。选择在2016年1月至2022年1月期间到我们医疗中心就诊并接受计算机断层扫描(CT)、X射线和/或眼部b超扫描(B-scan)检查的患者。结果:本研究纳入了134例有眼外伤和OFBs病史的患者(平均年龄47.25岁,范围8-78岁)。从损伤到UBM检查的平均时间间隔为36.31个月(0.2 ~ 120个月)。大多数ofb为金属(51.82%)或植物(25.37%);22.39%位于巩膜,26.87%位于前房,23.88%位于睫状体和虹膜。ofb的尺寸范围为0.10至6.67 mm(平均:1.15±1.10 mm)。119例患者中有37例(31.09%)在b超扫描中发现ofb;84例患者中有52例(61.90%)CT检查;50例患者中x线片29例(58.00%)。单因素和多因素分析确定,CT和x线摄影显示植物性OFBs与非植物性OFBs的检出率较低(CT: p 1.00 mm;CT: p = 0.001, x线片:p = 0.024),以及眼球壁位置(相对于眼内;结论:CT、x线和b线扫描显示植物性、小的和位于眼球壁的ofb检出率较低。我们的研究结果强烈表明,当怀疑有此类ofb时,UBM可能是一种更充分的成像方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficiency of different imaging methods in detecting ocular foreign bodies

Background

Ocular foreign bodies (OFBs) are a relatively common occurrence in ocular injuries, and a severe risk factor for vision disorders. They are notoriously challenging to identify and localize precisely to allow surgical removal, even with the most recent technological advancements.

Purpose

To compare the efficiency of different imaging methods in detecting and localizing OFBs.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with OFBs, detected by ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) and confirmed during surgery. Patients who presented to our medical center between January 2016 and January 2022 and also underwent computed tomography (CT), X ray, and/or ocular B-scan ultrasonography (B-scans) were selected.

Results

This study included 134 patients with a history of ocular trauma and OFBs (mean age: 47.25 years, range: 8–78). The mean time interval from injury to UBM examination was 36.31 months (range: 0.2–120 months). Most OFBs were metallic (51.82%) or plant-based (25.37%); 22.39% of them were located in the sclera, 26.87% in the anterior chamber, and 23.88% in the ciliary body and iris. OFBs ranged in size from 0.10 to 6.67 mm (mean: 1.15 ± 1.10 mm). B-scans identified OFBs in 37 of the 119 patients examined (31.09%); CT in 52 of 84 patients (61.90%); and radiography in 29 of 50 patients (58.00%). Univariate and multivariate analyses determined that both CT and radiography showed low detection rates for plant-based versus non-plant-based OFBs (CT: p < 0.001; radiography: p = 0.007), small particles (<1.00 mm vs. >1.00 mm; CT: p = 0.001, radiography: p = 0.024), and with eyeball wall locations (vs. intraocular; CT: p < 0.001, radiography: p = 0.021). Similarly, B-scans were less efficient for plant-based and eyeball wall-located OFBs (both p = 0.001), whereas the difference based on dimensions was not significant (p = 0.118).

Conclusions

CT, radiography, and B-scans showed lower detection rates for plant-based, small, and eyeball wall-located OFBs. Our findings strongly suggest that UBM could be a more adequate imaging modality when such OFBs are suspected.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical physics
Medical physics 医学-核医学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
15.80%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Medical Physics publishes original, high impact physics, imaging science, and engineering research that advances patient diagnosis and therapy through contributions in 1) Basic science developments with high potential for clinical translation 2) Clinical applications of cutting edge engineering and physics innovations 3) Broadly applicable and innovative clinical physics developments Medical Physics is a journal of global scope and reach. By publishing in Medical Physics your research will reach an international, multidisciplinary audience including practicing medical physicists as well as physics- and engineering based translational scientists. We work closely with authors of promising articles to improve their quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信