BRIEF REPORTS
Hyphema caused by a metallic intraocular foreign body during magnetic resonance imaging

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00435-3Get rights and content

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To report a 63-year-old man with a retained intraocular foreign body who developed a hyphema during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain.

METHODS:

Case report and review of the current literature on ocular injury caused by intraocular foreign bodies when subjected to an electromagnetic field.

RESULTS:

Our patient underwent a brain MRI, and the intraocular foreign body caused a hyphema and increased intraocular pressure. The presence and location of the intraocular foreign body were determined by computed tomography (CT).

CONCLUSION:

Magnetic resonance imaging can cause serious ocular injury in patients with ferromagnetic intraocular foreign bodies. This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining an occupational history, and, when indicated, a skull x-ray or CT to rule out intraocular foreign body before an MRI study.

References (5)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (39)

  • Metallic intraocular foreign body as detected by magnetic resonance imaging without complications– A case report

    2017, American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports
    Citation Excerpt :

    We believe this may be the largest metallic IOFB reported that underwent MRI without evidence of ocular damage. There are very few reports in the published literature demonstrating MRI of a metallic intraocular foreign body in vivo.1–4 Most recently, Zhang and colleagues in China described two cases of very small (≤0.5mm) intraocular ferromagnetic particles visualized using MRI.4

  • Intraorbital foreign body detection and localisation by radiographers: A preliminary JAFROC observer performance study

    2016, Radiography
    Citation Excerpt :

    Indeed a study by Williamson et al.49 discussed the risk of injury from an MRI scan to patients with a history of a metallic IOFB, and suggested a figure of one in several thousand will actually incur an injury, and thus routine screening of at risk patients would seem unnecessary. A balanced argument would state that although it has been shown that a questionnaire may not provide an adequate patient history to reduce the risk of harm,11,50 and that there are many factors that impact on the level of risk from ferromagnetic IOFB movements (location, size, geometry, metallic properties, MRI field strength, and period of time the IOFB has been in situ49), a proven risk has been demonstrated in peer reviewed papers.1–5 The majority of NHS facilities have established strict screening criteria for possible intraocular and IOFBs in line with current guideline recommendations.6

  • Undetected intraocular metallic foreign body causing hyphema in a patient undergoing MRI: A rare occurrence demonstrating the limitations of pre-MRI safety screening

    2015, Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Citation Excerpt :

    Since the initial report by Kelly et al. in 1986 of an adverse event in a patient with an intraorbital metallic foreign body (IMFB), no additional case reports of orbital adverse events have been reported in the radiology literature [1]. In the non-radiology English literature, there have been only two additional reported cases of adverse events associated with MRI of patients with IMFBs, both of which were in ophthalmology journals [2,3]. Screening for metallic foreign bodies in the orbit via patient questionnaires and orbital radiographs has been commonplace in radiology departments since the 1980s, despite the limited case reports of adverse events.

  • Management of intraocular foreign bodies:aclinical flight plan

    2013, Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Anterior segment optical coherence tomography has been used in the identification of anterior segment IOFBs, particularly along the internal surface of the cornea, the angle, and the iris. Magnetic resonance imaging is not used for IOFBs despite its sensitivity because of risk for metallic object movement and damage to adjacent tissue.21 A minority of patients with IOFB deny any history of trauma or report remote trauma only upon questioning.22

  • Transorbital penetrating brain injury by branchlet: A rare case

    2011, Journal of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Variation of the CT window range, angle, and level can distinguish the wood fragment from air because the CT number for wood ranges from −500 Hounsfield units (HU) to −200 HU, and that of air is −1000 HU (8). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is better than CT scan for detection of small fragments of wooden foreign bodies (9). MRI shows wood as a low-intensity demarcated structure, and T1-weighted MRI can provide a distinct contrast between fat and wood (10).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text