Emergency department radiology: reality or luxury? An international comparison.

Contains fulltext : 88729.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Changes in society and developments within emergency care affect imaging in the emergency department. It is clear that radiologists have to be pro-active to even survive. High quality service is the goal, and if we are to add value to the diagnostic (and therapeutic) chain of healthcare, sub-specialization is the key, and, although specifically patient-oriented and not organ-based, emergency and trauma imaging is well suited for that. The development of emergency radiology in Europe and the United States is compared with emphasis on how different healthcare systems and medical cultures affect the utilization of Acute Care imaging.1 april 201

Routine versus selective multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) in blunt trauma patients: level of agreement on the influence of additional findings on management.

INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to determine the agreement between and within surgeons concerning the influence on treatment plan of routine versus selective multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) findings in blunt trauma patients. PATIENTS: For this study, 50 patients were randomly selected from a customized database that was originally used to compare a diagnostic algorithm with a selective use of MDCT with an algorithm with routine MDCT of the spine, chest, and abdomen within the same population. In all 50 patients, routine MDCT found additional diagnoses as compared with the selective MDCT algorithm. Of all patients, paper cases were created with detailed information on clinical parameters, findings by physical examination, and radiologic findings. The cases were independently presented to three different trauma surgeons. First, the surgeons were asked for their treatment plan based upon diagnoses found by physical examination, conventional radiography, and selective MDCT alone. Subsequently they were asked for their treatment plan with knowledge of the injuries additionally found by routine MDCT. This procedure was repeated after 3 months. The agreement between and within surgeons was determined for the change of patient management because of additional findings by routine MDCT. RESULTS: The agreement on the influence of routine MDCT findings on patient management between surgeons was moderate ([kappa] = 0.46) in the first procedure and substantial in the second ([kappa] = 0.67). The agreement within surgeons ranged from moderate ([kappa] = 0.60) to excellent ([kappa] = 0.87). CONCLUSION: All surgeons agreed that the traumatic injuries additionally found by routine MDCT, frequently resulted in a change of treatment plan. There was a moderate-to-excellent agreement between and within surgeons that these additional findings resulted in a change of treatment plan

Predictors for the selection of patients for abdominal CT after blunt trauma: a proposal for a diagnostic algorithm.

Contains fulltext : 89655.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)OBJECTIVE: To select parameters that can predict which patients should receive abdominal computed tomography (CT) after high-energy blunt trauma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Abdominal CT accurately detects injuries of the abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine, but has important disadvantages. More evidence for an appropriate patient selection for CT is required. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed on consecutive adult high-energy blunt trauma patients. All patients received primary and secondary surveys according to the advanced trauma life support, sonography (focused assessment with sonography for trauma [FAST]), conventional radiography (CR) of the chest, pelvis, and spine and routine abdominal CT. Parameters from prehospital information, physical examination, laboratory investigations, FAST, and CR were prospectively recorded for all patients. Independent predictors for the presence of > or =1 injuries on abdominal CT were determined using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1040 patients were included, 309 had injuries on abdominal CT. Nine parameters were independent predictors for injuries on CT: abnormal CR of the pelvis (odds ratio [OR], 46.8), lumbar spine (OR, 16.2), and chest (OR, 2.37), abnormal FAST (OR, 26.7), abnormalities in physical examination of the abdomen/pelvis (OR, 2.41) or lumbar spine (OR 2.53), base excess <-3 (OR, 2.39), systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (OR, 3.81), and long bone fractures (OR, 1.61). The prediction model based on these predictors resulted in a R of 0.60, a sensitivity of 97%, and a specificity of 33%. A diagnostic algorithm was subsequently proposed, which could reduce CT usage with 22% as compared with a routine use. CONCLUSIONS: Based on parameters from physical examination, laboratory, FAST, and CR, we created a prediction model with a high sensitivity to select patients for abdominal CT after blunt trauma. A diagnostic algorithm was proposed.1 maart 201

Added value of routine chest MDCT after blunt trauma: evaluation of additional findings and impact on patient management.

Contains fulltext : 69546.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the added value of a low-threshold routine thoracic MDCT algorithm compared with a selective MDCT algorithm in adult blunt trauma patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in 464 consecutive blunt trauma patients who met criteria indicative of severe blunt trauma (66% male; age range, 16-93 years; median injury severity score, 13). After clinical evaluation and conventional radiography of the chest and thoracic spine, all patients underwent routine thoracic MDCT with an IV contrast agent (routine MDCT algorithm). Within this routine MDCT group, a subgroup was prospectively defined with abnormal or inconclusive clinical or conventional radiography evaluation (selective MDCT group). Two investigators determined the type, extent, and clinical impact of additional injuries found on MDCT as compared to conventional radiography for both MDCT groups. RESULTS: Of all 464 patients within the routine MDCT group, 164 patients underwent selective MDCT, which resulted in detection of additional diagnoses compared with conventional radiography in 97 (59%) patients. The routine MDCT algorithm detected additional diagnoses compared with conventional radiography in 201 of 464 patients (43%). Compared with the selective MDCT algorithm, this was an absolute increase of 104 of 464 (22%) extra patients, resulting in a change in patient management in 34 (7%; 95% CI, 5-9.7%), mostly because of additional findings of pulmonary and mediastinal injury. CONCLUSION: Routine MDCT has relatively lower, though still substantial, added diagnostic value compared with selective MDCT of the chest

Routine versus selective computed tomography of the abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine in blunt trauma: a prospective evaluation.

Contains fulltext : 81608.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: Discussion still remains whether computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine should be performed routinely after blunt trauma with high energy impact or only in restricted situations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the additional value of a routine CT algorithm as compared with a more restricted, selective CT algorithm. MATERIALS: This prospective study consisted of 465 patients that met the inclusion criteria of our high-energy trauma protocol. All patients underwent physical examination, abdominal ultrasound (AUS), and conventional radiography (CR) of the pelvis and lumbar spine and subsequently routine CT of the abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine. Before CT, a subgroup of patients with abnormal physical examination or CR or AUS was prospectively defined as the selective CT group. Type and extent of injuries and impact on treatment were recorded for both the routine CT group and the selective CT subgroup. RESULTS: Of all patients, 42 received selective CT of the abdomen, 71 of the pelvis, and 48 of the lumbar spine. Compared with the algorithm with selective CT, routine CT revealed additional traumatic injuries in 15% of the patients in the abdomen, in 2.4% in the pelvis and in 8.2% in the lumbar spine. This resulted in an overall change of treatment in 6.4% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-9.0) of the patients who would not have received CT in a selective CT algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with an algorithm with selective CT, an algorithm with routine CT finds substantially more clinically relevant diagnoses, even in patients with unsuspicious clinical examination, normal CR, and normal AUS

Predictors of abnormal chest CT after blunt trauma: a critical appraisal of the literature.

Contains fulltext : 80538.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)AIM: To identify and to evaluate predictors that determine whether chest computed tomography (CT) is likely to reveal relevant injuries in adult blunt trauma patients. METHODS: After a comprehensive literature search for original studies on blunt chest injury diagnosis, two independent observers included studies on the accuracy of parameters derived from history, physical examination, or diagnostic imaging that might predict injuries at (multidetector row) CT in adults and that allowed construction of 2x2 contingency tables. For each article, methodological quality was scored and relevant predictors for injuries at CT were extracted. For each predictor, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) including 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Of 147 articles initially identified, the observers included 10 original studies in consensus. Abnormalities at physical examination (abnormal respiratory effort, need for assisted ventilation, reduced airentry, coma, chest wall tenderness) and pelvic fractures were significant predictors (DOR: 2.1-6.7). The presence of any injuries at conventional radiography of the chest (eight articles) was a more powerful significant predictor (DOR: 2.2-37). Abnormal chest ultrasonography (four articles) was the most accurate predictor for chest injury at CT (DOR: 491-infinite). CONCLUSION: The current literature indicates that in blunt trauma patients with abnormal physical examination, abnormal conventional radiography, or abnormal ultrasonography of the chest, CT was likely to reveal relevant chest injuries. However, there was no strong evidence to suggest that CT could be omitted in patients without these criteria, or whether these findings are beneficial for patients

Arm raising at exposure-controlled multidetector trauma CT of thoracoabdominal region: higher image quality, lower radiation dose.

Contains fulltext : 69921.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of arm position on image quality and effective radiation dose in an automatic exposure-controlled (AEC) multidetector thoracoabdominal computed tomography (CT) protocol in trauma patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study of the data of 177 trauma patients (117 male; median age, 39 years) was approved by the institutional ethics board, with informed patient consent waived. Patients underwent scanning by using an AEC 16-detector thoracoabdominal CT protocol in which both arms were raised above the shoulder region (standard-position group, 132 patients), one arm was raised and the other was down (one-arm group, 27 patients), or both arms were down (two-arm group, 18 patients). Objective and subjective image quality was assessed. Individual effective radiation dose was calculated from the effective tube current-time product per exposed section. For this purpose, section location-dependent conversion factors were derived by using a CT dosimetry calculator. The effect of arm position on effective dose was quantified by using linear regression analysis with correction for patient volume and attenuation. RESULTS: Compared with the image quality in the standard-position group, the image quality in the one- and two-arm groups was decreased but within acceptable diagnostic limits. The median corrected effective dose in the standard-position group was 18.6 mSv; the dose in the one-arm group was 18% (95% confidence interval: 11%, 25%) higher than this, and that in the two-arm group was 45% (95% confidence interval: 34%, 57%) higher. CONCLUSION: Omitting arm raising results in lower but acceptable image quality and a substantially higher effective radiation dose. Hence, effort should be made to position the arms above the shoulder when scanning trauma patients. Clinical trial registration no. NCT00228111