Inexperienced clinicians can extract pathoanatomic information from MRI narrative reports with high reproducibility for use in research/quality assurance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although reproducibility in reading MRI images amongst radiologists and clinicians has been studied previously, no studies have examined the reproducibility of inexperienced clinicians in extracting pathoanatomic information from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) narrative reports and transforming that information into quantitative data. However, this process is frequently required in research and quality assurance contexts. The purpose of this study was to examine inter-rater reproducibility (agreement and reliability) among an inexperienced group of clinicians in extracting spinal pathoanatomic information from radiologist-generated MRI narrative reports.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty MRI narrative reports were randomly extracted from an institutional database. A group of three physiotherapy students independently reviewed the reports and coded the presence of 14 common pathoanatomic findings using a categorical electronic coding matrix. Decision rules were developed after initial coding in an effort to resolve ambiguities in narrative reports. This process was repeated a further three times using separate samples of 20 MRI reports until no further ambiguities were identified (total n = 80). Reproducibility between trainee clinicians and two highly trained raters was examined in an arbitrary coding round, with agreement measured using percentage agreement and reliability measured using unweighted Kappa (<it>k</it>). Reproducibility was then examined in another group of three trainee clinicians who had not participated in the production of the decision rules, using another sample of 20 MRI reports.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean percentage agreement for paired comparisons between the initial trainee clinicians improved over the four coding rounds (97.9-99.4%), although the greatest improvement was observed after the first introduction of coding rules. High inter-rater reproducibility was observed between trainee clinicians across 14 pathoanatomic categories over the four coding rounds (agreement range: 80.8-100%; reliability range <it>k </it>= 0.63-1.00). Concurrent validity was high in paired comparisons between trainee clinicians and highly trained raters (agreement 97.8-98.1%, reliability <it>k </it>= 0.83-0.91). Reproducibility was also high in the second sample of trainee clinicians (inter-rater agreement 96.7-100.0% and reliability <it>k </it>= 0.76-1.00; intra-rater agreement 94.3-100.0% and reliability <it>k </it>= 0.61-1.00).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A high level of radiological training is not required in order to transform MRI-derived pathoanatomic information from a narrative format to a quantitative format with high reproducibility for research or quality assurance purposes.</p

Radiation exposure and avoidance in minimally invasive spine surgery

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019. The advent of minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS or MISS) heralds an important milestone in the surgical management of spinal disorders. MIS provides the modern spine surgeon the ability to treat spine pathology in a precise, less morbid manner when compared to open procedures. The benefits of MIS over open procedures include, but are not limited to, decreased blood loss, decreased infection rates, and decreased hospital length of stay. These benefits of MIS coexist with the burden of an increased reliance on radiographic imaging in the operating theater. Radiography in MIS can produce significant amounts of radiation, placing both the surgeon and patient at risk. Efforts to limit radiation exposure in MIS stem from a basic understanding of the physical nature of ionizing radiation and its effects on living tissue. Although the quantity of radiation produced in various MIS procedures varies in the literature, a surgeon’s hands and thyroid gland may represent structures consistently at risk. Techniques to limit radiation exposure include preoperative considerations, such as prudently planning when imaging is necessary during a case, and intraoperative adjustments such as appropriately positioning the radiation source in relation to the patient and surgeon. Knowledge of these techniques allows spine surgeons to effectively perform MIS while simultaneously reducing radiation exposure