• Question: On the argument of what is better x rays or ultra sound waves what do you think is better to diagnose what is wrong with the body?

    Asked by Im Mr Khan's Botoi to Chris on 18 Jun 2015.
    • Photo: Chris Armstrong

      Chris Armstrong answered on 18 Jun 2015:

      You can argue in favour of both, ultrasonic waves are incredibly safe, cannot damage unless tuned incredibly high (thats how we can destroy kidney stones) and provide some information on internal structure.

      X-ray however are a form of radiation, hence the copious dose limits for patients – the NHS make sure you are never anywhere close to yearly dose limits. But they provide amazing information on the internal structure and are able to find breaks in the bone all the way down to hair line fractures sub mm thick. Accurately tuned x-ray sources can also be used to detect abnormal internal growth, for example dense objects in the lungs can be spotted immediately from a chest x-ray.

      I vote x-rays. Just don’t have too many of them.

Comments

  • Photo: Susan

    Susan commented on :

    I’d add that it depends on what you are trying to diagnose. If you have fallen and the ER physician thinks you might have broken your wrist, an X-ray is much more useful than an ultrasound scan – it will give more detail, and X-rays are well suited to looking at dense material like bone. If, on the other hand, you want to look at soft tissue, you may be better off with ultrasound – particularly as there are ultrasound probes that can be passed down your throat (i.e. you swallow them!) to give a closer look at internal organs. You can also use Doppler ultrasound, which sees the change in frequency caused by motion, to monitor moving things such as blood flow – this is very difficult with X-rays.

    Also, you shouldn’t discount other scanning methods, such as MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and PET (positron emission tomography). It’s not a two-horse race!