Do young patients with high clinical suspicion of appendicitis really need cross sectional imaging? Proceedings from a highly controversial debate among the experts' panel of 2020 WSES Jerusalem Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Podda ◽  
Roland Andersson ◽  
Marja Boermeester ◽  
Federico Coccolini ◽  
Massimo Sartelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young Patients ◽  
Clinical Suspicion ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
High Clinical Suspicion ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
Sectional Imaging

scholarly journals Overutilization of Cross-Sectional Imaging in the Lower Extremity Trauma Setting

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (01) ◽  
pp. 023-028
Author(s):  
Clinton Protack ◽  
Brian Wengerter ◽  
Raymond Jean ◽  
Shirley Liu ◽  
Hamid Mojibian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Clinical Suspicion ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves ◽  
High Clinical Suspicion ◽  
Operative Exploration ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
Sectional Imaging

Objective In an era of managed care and cost savings, we are faced with the question of whether another test is necessary to confirm our clinical suspicion. We hypothesized that a few computed tomography angiographies (CTAs) are necessary to identify lower extremity vascular injuries (LEVIs). We reviewed our trauma center's experience in the management of LEVI. Methods A retrospective review of all trauma patients between 2012 and 2016 was performed. Four-thousand nine-hundred fourteen trauma patients were evaluated with 46 suspected LEVIs (either with cross-sectional imaging and/or operative exploration). Our primary end point was the utility of CTA in the setting of LEVI. Receiver operating characteristic curves were performed to evaluate sensitivity and specificity for hard signs and CTA identification of LEVI. Results Out of the initial 46 patients with suspected LEVI, 41 (89%) had a CTA as part of their initial evaluation. Sixteen patients (35%) with LEVI were due to penetrating injuries. Seventeen patients (41%) had a CTA with LEVI. Fourteen of the 17 patients (82%) with injury on CTA also had hard signs of LEVI. Twenty-two patients (48%) underwent operative exploration: three had no LEVI that was previously believed to be on CTA; operative exploration identified two missed injuries not observed on CTA. Seven of forty-one (17%) CTA studies provided a false assumption of the presence/absence of LEVI. One patient (2%) underwent operative exploration and was found to have LEVI in the absence of hard signs, but with a CTA identifying LEVI. Conclusion The recognition of hard signs through physical examination is paramount to assessing need for operative intervention with suspicion of LEVI. CTA should be reserved as an adjunct for identification of LEVI in patients with high clinical suspicion and absence of hard signs, rather than utilizing CTA as an initial screening tool for the identification of LEVI.

scholarly journals CT findings of congenital neonatal pyriform aperture stenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Halimah Abu Bakar Sidek ◽  
Yong Guang Teh ◽  
Anithaa Tangaperumal ◽  
Faizah Mohd Zaki ◽  
Thean Yean Kew
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinical Suspicion ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Imaging Diagnosis ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Craniofacial Dysmorphism ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
Sectional Imaging ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Pyriform Aperture

ABSTRACT Congenital neonatal pyriform aperture stenosis (CNPAS) is a rare but potentially lethal condition that causes respiratory distress. The characteristic narrowing of the pyriform aperture along with other associated craniofacial dysmorphism is diagnosed using cross-sectional imaging such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging. CT scan is the imaging of choice for confirming and characterizing CNPAS. Infants are obligate nasal breathers in the first 5 months of life. Hence, a high degree of clinical suspicion, prompt imaging diagnosis and adequate respiratory support is critical to help reduce the morbidity of this condition.

State-of-the-art aortic imaging: Part II - applications in transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

VASA ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian Rengier ◽  
Philipp Geisbüsch ◽  
Paul Schoenhagen ◽  
Matthias Müller-Eschner ◽  
Rolf Vosshenrich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Repair ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Open Surgical Repair ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
Sectional Imaging

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as well as thoracic and abdominal endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR and EVAR) rely on accurate pre- and postprocedural imaging. This review article discusses the application of imaging, including preprocedural assessment and measurements as well as postprocedural imaging of complications. Furthermore, the exciting perspective of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based on cross-sectional imaging is presented. TAVR is a minimally invasive alternative for treatment of aortic valve stenosis in patients with high age and multiple comorbidities who cannot undergo traditional open surgical repair. Given the lack of direct visualization during the procedure, pre- and peri-procedural imaging forms an essential part of the intervention. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is the imaging modality of choice for preprocedural planning. Routine postprocedural follow-up is performed by echocardiography to confirm treatment success and detect complications. EVAR and TEVAR are minimally invasive alternatives to open surgical repair of aortic pathologies. CTA constitutes the preferred imaging modality for both preoperative planning and postoperative follow-up including detection of endoleaks. Magnetic resonance imaging is an excellent alternative to CT for postoperative follow-up, and is especially beneficial for younger patients given the lack of radiation. Ultrasound is applied in screening and postoperative follow-up of abdominal aortic aneurysms, but cross-sectional imaging is required once abnormalities are detected. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound may be as sensitive as CTA in detecting endoleaks.

The role of pre-biopsy mpMRI in lymph node staging for prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. 039156032110168
Author(s):  
Nassib Abou Heidar ◽  
Robert El-Doueihi ◽  
Ali Merhe ◽  
Paul Ramia ◽  
Gerges Bustros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
Sectional Imaging ◽  
Kappa Agreement

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) staging is an integral part in the management of prostate cancer. The gold standard for diagnosing lymph node invasion is a surgical lymphadenectomy, with no superior imaging modality available at the clinician’s disposal. Our aim in this study is to identify if a pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) can provide enough information about pelvic lymph nodes in intermediate and high risk PCa patients, and whether it can substitute further cross sectional imaging (CSI) modalities of the abdomen and pelvis in these risk categories. Methods: Patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer were collected between January 2015 and June 2019, while excluding patients who did not undergo a pre-biopsy mpMRI or a CSI. Date regarding biopsy result, PSA, MRI results, CSI imaging results were collected. Using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24.0, statistical analysis was conducted using the Cohen’s Kappa agreement for comparison of mpMRI with CSI. McNemar’s test and receiver operator curve (ROC) curve were used for comparison of sensitivity of both tests when comparing to the gold standard of lymphadenectomy. Results: A total of 143 patients fit the inclusion criteria. We further stratified our patients into according to PSA level and Gleason score. Overall, agreement between mpMRI and all CSI was 0.857. When stratifying patients based on Gleason score and PSA, the higher the grade or PSA, the higher agreement between mpMRI and CSI. The sensitivity of mpMRI (73.7%) is similar to CSI (68.4%). When comparing CSI sensitivity to that of mpMRI, no significant difference was present by utilizing the McNemar test and very similar receiver operating characteristic curve. Conclusion: A pre-biopsy mpMRI can potentially substitute further cross sectional imaging in our cohort of patients. However, larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document