+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Use of a metal detector to identify ingested metallic foreign bodies

Use of a metal detector to identify ingested metallic foreign bodies

Ajr. American Journal of Roentgenology 155(4): 803-804

A metal detector reveals the presence of metallic objects by measuring the change in the inductance of a coil placed near a metallic mass. The device used in this study is similar in principle to those used for passenger surveillance in airports except for its smaller size and simpler design. In this study, we compared the accuracy of a metal detector with that of plain radiographs for the localization of ingested metallic objects. Twenty-eight consecutive patients with the presumptive diagnosis of metallic foreign-body ingestion were examined with a metal detector. The results were compared with those of plain radiographs which were considered the gold standard. Fifteen positive cases and 13 negative cases were correctly diagnosed by metal detector examination. No false-positive or false-negative results occurred. Our experience suggests that metal detection is a simple and accurate technique for the localization of ingested metallic objects and provides information equivalent to that from plain radiographs for the treatment of patients with suspected foreign-body ingestion.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 007985610

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 2119112

DOI: 10.2214/ajr.155.4.2119112

Related references

The use of a metal detector to locate ingested metallic foreign bodies in children. Journal of Accident and Emergency Medicine 13(5): 341-342, 1996

Handheld metal detector localization of ingested metallic foreign bodies: accurate in any hands?. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 153(8): 853-857, 1999

The use of a hand-held metal detector for localisation of ingested metallic foreign bodies - a critical investigation. European Journal of Pediatrics 163(4-5): 257-259, 2004

Things that go beep: experience with an ED guideline for use of a handheld metal detector in the management of ingested non-hazardous metallic foreign bodies. Emergency Medicine Journal 23(6): 456-460, 2006

Detection of ingested foreign bodies with a metal detector. Journal of Pediatrics 121(5 Pt 1): 837-838, 1992

Hand-held metal detector identification of ingested foreign bodies. Pediatric Emergency Care 10(4): 204-207, 1994

Identification and topographic localization of metallic foreign bodies by metal detector. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 39(8): 1245-1248, 2004

A simple and inexpensive metal detector for magnetic and nonmagnetic metallic foreign bodies. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 72: 363-367, 1974

Causes and effects of metallic foreign bodies in wood. 1. 2. Metal detectors and their use. 3. Effects of metallic foreign bodies in the forest and in the major woodworking and wood processing industries. 4. Effects on the sale of logs containing foreign bodies and logs from which foreign bodies have been removed. Holz Zentralblatt 113(25; 32; 40; 43): 336; 457-458, 462; 565-566, 572; 620, 1987

X-ray detection of ingested non-metallic foreign bodies. World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics 3(2): 14-18, 2014

Perforations of the small intestine by ingested non-metallic foreign bodies. British Medical Journal 2(4790): 922, 1952

Stomach full of ingested foreign bodies: more than a "metallic taste". Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology 21(3): 322-323, 2010

Removal of ingested metallic foreign bodies from children by orogastric magnetic tube. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies 6(5-6): 469-471, 1997

The mine detector as an aid to detection of metallic foreign bodies incattle. Vet. Rec, 58: 237, 1946

Just How Good Are Handheld Metal Detectors for Ingested Foreign Bodies?. Annals of Emergency Medicine 69(4): 516-518, 2017