PURPOSE: We wished to compare the ability of ultrasonography and radiography performed on the same day to detect rib fractures in minor chest injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and fifteen patients with minor chest injuries were selected. Radiography and ultrasonography were performed on the same day with these patients. Chest wall pain was the only presenting symptom. Two radiologists performed ultrasonography. Fractures were identified by a disruption of the anterior margin of the rib and costal cartilage. The incidence and location of fractures and complications revealed by radiography and ultrasonography were compared. RESULTS: Radiographs revealed the presence of 70 rib fractures in 50 (23%) of 215 patients and ultrasonography revealed the presence of 203 rib fractures in 133 (62%) of 215 patients. Ultrasonography uniquely identified 133 rib fractures in 83 patients. Ultrasonography identified a 2.9 fold increase in the number of fractures in a 2.6 fold number of subjects as compared to radiography. Of the 203 sonographically detected fractures, 201 were located in the rib, one was located at the costochondral junction, and one in the costal cartilage. There were no complications seen by either radiography or ultrasonography. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography reveals more fractures than those that may be overlooked on radiography for minor chest injuries.
Cartilage ; Humans ; Incidence ; Radiography* ; Rib Fractures* ; Ribs* ; Thoracic Injuries* ; Thoracic Wall ; Thorax* ; Ultrasonography*

PURPOSE: This study was designed to investigate differences in ultrasonographic findings between malignant and benign mammary duct ectasia. METHODS: From January 2003 to June 2005, 54 surgically proven mammary duct ectasia lesions depicted on sonograms were included in this study. We evaluated the ultrasonographic (US) findings in terms of involved ductal location, size, margin, intraductal echogenicity, presence of an intraductal nodule, calcification, ductal wall thickening and echo changes of the surrounding breast parenchyma. The US findings were correlated with the pathological features. RESULTS: Of the 54 lesions, 46 lesions were benign and eight lesions were malignant. Benign lesions included an inflammatory change (n=7), ductal epithelial hyperplasia (n=7), fibrocystic change (n=18), intraductal papilloma (n=11), atypical ductal hyperplasia (n=2) and sclerosing adenosis (n=1). Malignant lesions included ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n=6), infiltrating ductal carcinoma (n=1) and mucinous carcinoma (n=1). On US images, the peripheral ductal location, an ill-defined margin, ductal wall thickening and a hypoechoic change of the surrounding parenchyma were features significantly associated with malignant duct ectasia. CONCLUSION: For ill-defined peripheral duct ectasia with ductal wall thickening and surrounding hypoechogenicity as depicted on US, the possibility of malignancy should be considered and radiologists should not hesitate to recommend a prompt biopsy.
Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous ; Biopsy ; Breast ; Breast Neoplasms ; Carcinoma, Ductal ; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating ; Dilatation, Pathologic ; Hyperplasia ; Papilloma, Intraductal ; Ultrasonography, Mammary