Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2015 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 5

Effectiveness of second-opinion radiology consultations to reassess the cervical spine CT scans: a study on trauma patients referred to a tertiary-care hospital

Pages
423–427
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The most common missed radiologic findings in the first-reports were transverse and spinous process fractures and the most common misdiagnoses were dens fractures.CONCLUSIONFor a service offering second-opinion consultations on cervical spine trauma, review of outside CT studies improves diagnosis and benefits patient care.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE A second opinion is a valuable resource in confirming proper medical diagnosis and treatment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODSCervical spine CT scans of 301 consecutive adult trauma patients, who were referred to our hospital from outside institutions, were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The most common missed radiologic findings in the first-reports were transverse and spinous process fractures and the most common misdiagnoses were dens fractures.CONCLUSIONFor a service offering second-opinion consultations on cervical spine trauma, review of outside CT studies improves diagnosis and benefits patient care.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE A second opinion is a valuable resource in confirming proper medical diagnosis and treatment. This study evaluates the effectiveness of second-opinion radiology consultations to reassess the cervical spine computed tomography (CT) scans of the trauma patients referred to our hospital. METHODSCervical spine CT scans of 301 consecutive adult trauma patients, who were referred to our hospital from outside institutions, were analyzed. The emergency radiologists at our institution completed the over-read reports on the CT images obtained at the outside facilities. A single radiologist com-pared the outside- and over-read reports and determined the discrepancy of the radiologic reports.RESULTSBased on the outside reports, 31% of the CT scans had cervical traumatic injury. In 92% of patients, the first-read and the over-read reports had consistent radiologic findings. About 90% of the positive, and 93% of the negative radiologic findings, were reported consistently in the over-read reports. Our analysis showed that the over-read reporting resulted in reassurance of negative findings in 63%; confirmation of positive findings in 29%; clearing a false diagnosis in 3%; and detection of a missed diagnosis in 5%. A rescan was done in 80% of patients with inconsistent and 20% of patients with consistent findings (P < 0.05). The most common missed radiologic findings in the first-reports were transverse and spinous process fractures and the most common misdiagnoses were dens fractures.CONCLUSIONFor a service offering second-opinion consultations on cervical spine trauma, review of outside CT studies improves diagnosis and benefits patient care.

🔖

Cite This Article

KHALILZADEH, O., RAHİMİAN, M., BATCHU, V., VADVALA, V. H., NOVELLİNE, A. R., CHOY, G. (2015). Effectiveness of second-opinion radiology consultations to reassess the cervical spine CT scans: a study on trauma patients referred to a tertiary-care hospital. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 5, 423–427. https://ajindex.com/articles/209729

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Sung JC, Sodickson A, Ledbetter S. Outside CT imaging among emergency department trans- fer patients. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6:626-632. [CrossRef] Al-Assaf AF, Bumpus LJ, Carter D, Dixon SB. Pre- venting errors in healthcare: a call for action. Hosp Top 2003; 81:5-12. [CrossRef] Eakins C, Ellis WD, Pruthi S, et al. Second opin- ion interpretations by specialty radiologists at a pediatric hospital: rate of disagreement and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199: 916-920. [CrossRef] Munera F, Rivas LA, Nunez DB, Jr., Quencer RM. Imaging evaluation of adult spinal injuries: em- phasis on multidetector CT in cervical spine trau- ma. Radiology 2012; 263:645-660. [CrossRef] Zen E, Yousem DM, Carone M, Lewin JS. Sec- ond-opinion consultations in neuroradiology. Radiology 2010; 255:135-141. [CrossRef] Harris JH, Mirvis SE. The radiology of acute cervical spine trauma. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1996. West OC. Second opinion readings on outside studies: Should we bother? Appl Radiol 2012; 41:6. Cheng T, Dumire R, Golden S, Gregory J. Im- pact on patient care of discordance in radiol- ogy readings between external overnight ra- diology services and staff radiology readings at a level 1 trauma center. Am J Surg 2013; 205:280-283. [CrossRef] Van Goethem JW, Maes M, Ozsarlak O, van den Hauwe L, Parizel PM. Imaging in spinal trauma. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:582-590. [CrossRef] Trafton PG. Spinal cord injuries. Surg Clin North Am 1982; 62:61-72. Kalantar SB. Fractures of the C1 and C2 vertebrae. Sem Spine Surg 2013; 25: 23-35. [CrossRef] Golob JF, Jr., Claridge JA, Yowler CJ, Como JJ, Peerless JR. Isolated cervical spine fractures in the elderly: a deadly injury. J Trauma 2008; 64:311-315. [CrossRef] Lustrin ES, Karakas SP, Ortiz AO, et al. Pediat- ric cervical spine: normal anatomy, variants, and trauma. Radiographics 2003; 23:539-560. [CrossRef] Barboza R, Fox JH, Shaffer LE, Opalek JM, Faroo- ki S. Incidental findings in the cervical spine at CT for trauma evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192:725-729. [CrossRef] Klimo P, Jr., Coon V, Brockmeyer D. Incidental os odontoideum: current management strate- gies. Neurosurg Focus 2011; 31:E10. [CrossRef] Huang PY, Yeh LR, Tzeng WS, et al. Imaging fea- tures of posterior limbus vertebrae. Clin Imag- ing 2012; 36:797-802. [CrossRef] Sugimoto Y, Ito Y, Shiozaki Y, Shimokawa T, Mazaki T. Motion induced artifact mimicking cervical dens fracture on the CT scan: a case re- port. Asian Spine J 2012; 6:2