The Acute Diagnosis of Takayasu's Arteritis Based on Helical CT Angiography of the Chest and Neck in the Emergency Room

Recently, a young woman presented acutely with a left hemispheric stroke and differing blood pressures in the arms as her initial manifestation of Takayasu's arteritis. Helical CT angiography, performed to rule out aortic dissection, revealed a thickened wall of the aortic arch with stenoses and occlusions of the great vessels, suggesting the diagnosis. The sequence of imaging studies and findings in this unusually catastrophic presentation of a typically insidious disease are highlighted

A Prospective Randomized Study of Clinical Assessment versus Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if routine use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis is warranted. Methods: During a one-year study period, all patients who presented to the surgical service with possible appendicitis were studied. One hundred eighty-two patients with possible appendicitis were randomized to clinical assessment (CA) alone, or clinical evaluation and abdominal/pelvic CT. A true-positive case resulted in a laparotomy that revealed a lesion requiring operation. A true-negative case did not require operation at one-week follow-up evaluation. Hospital length of stay, hospital charges, perforation rates, and times to operation were recorded. Results: The age and gender distributions were similar in both groups. Accuracy was 90% in the CA group and 92% for CT. Sensitivity was 100% for the CA group and 91% for the CT group. Specificity was 73% for CA and 93% for CT. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital length of stay (CA = 2.4 ± 3.2 days vs. CT = 2.2 ± 2.2 days, p = 0.55), hospital charges (CA = $10,728 ± 10,608 vs. CT =$10,317 ± 7,173, p = 0.73) or perforation rates (CA = 6% vs. CT = 9%, p = 0.4). Time to the operating room was shorter in the CA group, 10.6 ± 8.4 h vs. CT, 19.0 ± 19.0 h (p \u3c 0.01). Conclusions: Clinical assessment unaided by CT reliably identifies patients who need operation for acute appendicitis, and they undergo surgery sooner. Routine use of abdominal/pelvic CT is not warranted. Further research is needed to identify sub-groups of patients who may benefit from CT. Computed tomography should not be considered the standard of care for the diagnosis of appendicitis

A Prospective Randomized Study of Clinical Assessment versus Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if routine use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis is warranted. Methods: During a one-year study period, all patients who presented to the surgical service with possible appendicitis were studied. One hundred eighty-two patients with possible appendicitis were randomized to clinical assessment (CA) alone, or clinical evaluation and abdominal/pelvic CT. A true-positive case resulted in a laparotomy that revealed a lesion requiring operation. A true-negative case did not require operation at one-week follow-up evaluation. Hospital length of stay, hospital charges, perforation rates, and times to operation were recorded. Results: The age and gender distributions were similar in both groups. Accuracy was 90% in the CA group and 92% for CT. Sensitivity was 100% for the CA group and 91% for the CT group. Specificity was 73% for CA and 93% for CT. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital length of stay (CA = 2.4 ± 3.2 days vs. CT = 2.2 ± 2.2 days, p = 0.55), hospital charges (CA = $10,728 ± 10,608 vs. CT =$10,317 ± 7,173, p = 0.73) or perforation rates (CA = 6% vs. CT = 9%, p = 0.4). Time to the operating room was shorter in the CA group, 10.6 ± 8.4 h vs. CT, 19.0 ± 19.0 h (p \u3c 0.01). Conclusions: Clinical assessment unaided by CT reliably identifies patients who need operation for acute appendicitis, and they undergo surgery sooner. Routine use of abdominal/pelvic CT is not warranted. Further research is needed to identify sub-groups of patients who may benefit from CT. Computed tomography should not be considered the standard of care for the diagnosis of appendicitis

A Prospective Randomized Study of Clinical Assessment Versus Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine if routine use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis is warranted. METHODS: During a one-year study period, all patients who presented to the surgical service with possible appendicitis were studied. One hundred eighty-two patients with possible appendicitis were randomized to clinical assessment (CA) alone, or clinical evaluation and abdominal/pelvic CT. A true-positive case resulted in a laparotomy that revealed a lesion requiring operation. A true-negative case did not require operation at one-week follow-up evaluation. Hospital length of stay, hospital charges, perforation rates, and times to operation were recorded. RESULTS: The age and gender distributions were similar in both groups. Accuracy was 90% in the CA group and 92% for CT. Sensitivity was 100% for the CA group and 91% for the CT group. Specificity was 73% for CA and 93% for CT. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital length of stay (CA = 2.4 +/- 3.2 days vs. CT = 2.2 +/- 2.2 days, p = 0.55), hospital charges (CA = 10,728 US dollars +/- 10,608 vs. CT = 10,317 US dollars +/- 7,173, p = 0.73) or perforation rates (CA = 6% vs. CT = 9%, p = 0.4). Time to the operating room was shorter in the CA group, 10.6 +/- 8.4 h vs. CT, 19.0 +/- 19.0 h (p \u3c 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessment unaided by CT reliably identifies patients who need operation for acute appendicitis, and they undergo surgery sooner. Routine use of abdominal/pelvic CT is not warranted. Further research is needed to identify sub-groups of patients who may benefit from CT. Computed tomography should not be considered the standard of care for the diagnosis of appendicitis

Establishing a clinical service for the treatment of osteoid osteoma using magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound: overview and guidelines

Abstract Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) in the treatment of osteoid osteoma (OO), a painful, benign bone tumor. As MRgFUS is a noninvasive and radiation-free treatment, it stands to replace the current standard of care, percutaneous radiofrequency, or laser thermal ablation. Within an institution, creation of a clinical OO MRgFUS treatment program would not only provide cutting edge medical treatment at the current time but would also establish the foundation for an MRgFUS clinical service to introduce treatments currently under development into clinical practice in the future. The purpose of this document is to provide information to facilitate creation of a clinical service for MRgFUS treatment of OO by providing (1) recommendations for the multi-disciplinary management of patients and (2) guidelines regarding current best practices for MRgFUS treatment. This paper will discuss establishment of a multi-disciplinary clinic, patient accrual, inclusion/exclusion criteria, diagnosis, preoperative imaging, patient preparation, anesthesia, treatment planning, targeting and treatment execution, complication avoidance, and patient follow-up to assure safety and effectiveness

Establishing a clinical service for the treatment of osteoid osteoma using magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound: overview and guidelines.

Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) in the treatment of osteoid osteoma (OO), a painful, benign bone tumor. As MRgFUS is a noninvasive and radiation-free treatment, it stands to replace the current standard of care, percutaneous radiofrequency, or laser thermal ablation. Within an institution, creation of a clinical OO MRgFUS treatment program would not only provide cutting edge medical treatment at the current time but would also establish the foundation for an MRgFUS clinical service to introduce treatments currently under development into clinical practice in the future. The purpose of this document is to provide information to facilitate creation of a clinical service for MRgFUS treatment of OO by providing (1) recommendations for the multi-disciplinary management of patients and (2) guidelines regarding current best practices for MRgFUS treatment. This paper will discuss establishment of a multi-disciplinary clinic, patient accrual, inclusion/exclusion criteria, diagnosis, preoperative imaging, patient preparation, anesthesia, treatment planning, targeting and treatment execution, complication avoidance, and patient follow-up to assure safety and effectiveness