Search

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of on-call radiology residents in interpreting alone brain and spine MRI studies performed after hours, to describe their mistakes, and to identify influencing factors that increased the occurrence of errors., Methods: A total of 328 MRI examinations performed during a 13-month period (from December 1, 2019, to January 1, 2021) were prospectively included. Discrepancies between the preliminary interpretation of on-call radiology residents and the final reports of attending neuroradiologists were noted and classified according to a three-level score: level 1 (perfect interpretation or minor correction), level 2 (important correction without immediate change in patient management), or level 3 (major correction with immediate change in patient management). Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test., Results: The overall discrepancy rate (level-2 and level-3 errors) was 16%; the rate of major discrepancies (only level-3 errors) was 5.5%. The major-discrepancy rate of second-year residents, when compared with that of senior residents, was significantly higher (p = 0.02). Almost all of the level-3 errors concerned cerebrovascular pathology. The most common level-2 errors involved undescribed aneurysms. We found no significant difference in the major-discrepancy rate regarding time since the beginning of the shift., Conclusions: The great majority of examinations were correctly interpreted. The rate of major discrepancies in our study was comparable to the data in the literature, and there was no adverse clinical outcome. The level of residency has an effect on the rate of serious errors in residents' reports., Key Points: • The rate of major discrepancies between preliminary MRI interpretations by on-call radiology residents and final reports by attending neuroradiologists is low, and comparable to discrepancy rates reported for head CT interpretations. • The youngest residents made significantly more serious errors when compared to senior residents. • There was no adverse clinical outcome in patient morbidity as a result of an initial misdiagnosis., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.)

Introduction: Fire death investigations attempt to determine whether a subject was alive or dead before the fire started. Therefore, it is essential to assess if the bone damage is traumatic or the result of exposure to heat. This observational study aims to expose the specific CT semiology of thermal bone lesions to allow the forensic radiologist to identify and distinguish them from traumatic lesions that would have preceded death., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the CT findings of 25 bodies with thermal bone lesions for which a postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) was performed prior to an autopsy. Imaging findings were correlated to the autopsy data to identify the specific features of thermal bone lesions., Results: Specific signs of thermal injuries to bone were identified on PMCT on all deceased cases. Thermal damages predominated in areas directly exposed to flames (rib cage, distal extremities) with less soft tissue coverage ("soft tissue shielding"). The mottled appearance of bone marrow was a constant sign of burned bones. Heat fractures such as trans-diploic fractures of flat bones and beveled ("flute-mouthpiece") fractures of extremities seemed specifically related to thermal mechanism. In addition, we provided a better description of superficial cortical fissures of flat bones ("ancient Chinese porcelain") and observed a "stair step" fracture of a long bone until now undescribed in radiological literature., Conclusion: Thermal bone lesions have specific CT findings, different on several points from traumatic injuries. Their knowledge is essential for radiologists and forensic physicians to provide an accurate report of injury and conclusions., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)