Search

Background A categorical CT assessment scheme for suspicion of pulmonary involvement of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 provides a basis for gathering scientific evidence and improved communication with referring physicians. Purpose To introduce the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) for use in the standardized assessment of pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 on unenhanced chest CT images and to report its initial interobserver agreement and performance. Materials and Methods The Dutch Radiological Society developed CO-RADS based on other efforts for standardization, such as the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System or Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. CO-RADS assesses the suspicion for pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The system is meant to be used in patients with moderate to severe symptoms of COVID-19. The system was evaluated by using 105 chest CT scans of patients admitted to the hospital with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and in whom reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed (mean, 62 years ± 16 [standard deviation]; 61 men, 53 with positive RT-PCR results). Eight observers used CO-RADS to assess the scans. Fleiss κ value was calculated, and scores of individual observers were compared with the median of the remaining seven observers. The resulting area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was compared with results from RT-PCR and clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Results There was absolute agreement among observers in 573 (68.2%) of 840 observations. Fleiss κ value was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45, 0.47), with the highest κ value for CO-RADS categories 1 (0.58, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.62) and 5 (0.68, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.72). The average AUC was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.97) for predicting RT-PCR outcome and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.99) for clinical diagnosis. The false-negative rate for CO-RADS 1 was nine of 161 cases (5.6%; 95% CI: 1.0%, 10%), and the false-positive rate for CO-RADS category 5 was one of 286 (0.3%; 95% CI: 0%, 1.0%). Conclusion The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) is a categorical assessment scheme for pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 at unenhanced chest CT that performs very well in predicting COVID-19 in patients with moderate to severe symptoms and has substantial interobserver agreement, especially for categories 1 and 5. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess, using an anthropomorphic digital phantom, the accuracy of algorithms in registering precontrast and contrast‐enhanced computed tomography (CT) chest images for generation of iodine maps of the pulmonary parenchyma via temporal subtraction. Materials and methods The XCAT phantom, with enhanced airway and pulmonary vessel structures, was used to simulate precontrast and contrast‐enhanced chest images at various inspiration levels and added CT simulation for realistic system noise. Differences in diaphragm position were varied between 0 and 20 mm, with the maximum chosen to exceed the 95th percentile found in a dataset of 100 clinical subtraction CTs. In addition, the influence of whole body movement, degree of iodine enhancement, beam hardening artifacts, presence of nodules and perfusion defects in the pulmonary parenchyma, and variation in noise on the registration were also investigated. Registration was performed using three lung registration algorithms - a commercial (algorithm A) and a prototype (algorithm B) version from Canon Medical Systems and an algorithm from the MEVIS Fraunhofer institute (algorithm C). For each algorithm, we calculated the voxel‐by‐voxel difference between the true deformation and the algorithm‐estimated deformation in the lungs. Results The median absolute residual error for all three algorithms was smaller than the voxel size (1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 mm3) for up to an 8 mm diaphragm difference, which is the average difference in diaphragm levels found clinically, and increased with increasing difference in diaphragm position. At 20 mm diaphragm displacement, the median absolute residual error after registration was 0.85 mm (interquartile range, 0.51-1.47 mm) for algorithm A, 0.82 mm (0.50-1.40 mm) for algorithm B, and 0.91 mm (0.54-1.52 mm) for algorithm C. The largest errors were seen in the paracardiac regions and close to the diaphragm. The impact of all other evaluated conditions on the residual error varied, resulting in an increase in the median residual error lower than 0.1 mm for all algorithms, except in the case of whole body displacements for algorithm B, and with increased noise for algorithm C. Conclusion Motion correction software can compensate for respiratory and cardiac motion with a median residual error below 1 mm, which was smaller than the voxel size, with small differences among the tested registration algorithms for different conditions. Perfusion defects above 50 mm will be visible with the commercially available subtraction CT software, even in poorly registered areas, where the median residual error in that area was 7.7 mm.

Objectives To compare contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) and iodine discrimination thresholds on iodine maps derived from dual energy CT (DECT) and subtraction CT (SCT). Methods A contrast-detail phantom experiment was performed with 2 to 15 mm diameter tubes containing water or iodinated contrast concentrations ranging from 0.5 mg/mL to 20 mg/mL. DECT scans were acquired at 100 kVp and at 140 kVp+Sn filtration. SCT scans were acquired at 100 kVp. Iodine maps were created by material decomposition (DECT) or by subtraction of water scans from iodine scans (SCT). Matched exposure levels varied from 8 to 15 mGy. Iodine discrimination thresholds (Cr) and response times were determined by eight observers. Results The adjusted mean CNR was 1.9 times higher for SCT than for DECT. Exposure level had no effect on CNR. All observers discriminated all details ≥10 mm at 12 and 15 mGy. For sub-centimetre details, the lowest calculated Cr was ≤ 0.50 mg/mL for SCT and 0.64 mg/mL for DECT. The smallest detail was discriminated at ≥4.4 mg/mL with SCT and at ≥7.4 mg/mL with DECT. Response times were lower for SCT than DECT. Conclusions SCT results in higher CNR and reduced iodine discrimination thresholds compared to DECT for sub-centimetre details. Key Points • Subtraction CT iodine maps exhibit higher CNR than dual-energy iodine maps • Lower iodine concentrations can be discriminated for sub-cm details with SCT • Response times are lower using SCT compared to dual-energy CT Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-018-5496-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

To evaluate the technical performance of an ultra-high-resolution CT (UHRCT) system.The physico-technical capabilities of a novel commercial UHRCT system were assessed and compared with those of a current-generation multi-detector (MDCT) system. The super-high-resolution (SHR) mode of the system uses 0.25 mm (at isocentre) detector elements (dels) in the in-plane and longitudinal directions, while the high-resolution (HR) mode bins two dels in the longitudinal direction. The normal-resolution (NR) mode bins dels 2 × 2, resulting in a del-size equivalent to that of the MDCT system. In general, standard procedures and phantoms were used to perform these assessments.The UHRCT MTF (10% MTF 4.1 lp/mm) is twice as high as that of the MDCT (10% MTF 1.9 lp/mm), which is comparable to the MTF in the NR mode (10% MTF 1.7 lp/mm). The width of the slice sensitivity profile in the SHR mode (FWHM 0.45 mm) is about 60% of that of the MDCT (FWHM 0.77 mm). Uniformity and CT numbers are within the expected range. Noise in the high-resolution modes has a higher magnitude and higher frequency components compared with MDCT. Low-contrast visibility is lower for the NR, HR and SHR modes compared with MDCT, but about a 14%, for NR, and 23%, for HR and SHR, dose increase gives the same results.HR and SHR mode scanning results in double the spatial resolution, with about a 23% increase in dose required to achieve the same low-contrast detectability.• Resolution on UHRCT is up to twice as high as for the tested MDCT. • With abdominal settings, UHRCT needs higher dose for the same low-contrast detectability as MDCT, but dose is still below achievable levels as defined by current diagnostic reference levels. • The UHRCT system used in normal-resolution mode yields comparable resolution and noise characteristics as the MDCT system.

Objective To evaluate accuracy of fracture detection and therapeutic impact of a single-shot CT protocol as a primary imaging tool in all patients with clinical suspicion of wrist injury, and evaluate the resulting impact on therapy. Materials and methods We performed a single-institution study on all patients with suspicion of fractures of the wrist and carpus. All patients underwent conventional radiography, thereafter single-shot wrist CT, and then 1-year follow-up. Physicians and radiologists prospectively scored likelihood of fracture presence on a five-point scale before and after CT. Three surgeons proposed a treatment regimen (functional, cast, reduction, or operative) based on clinical and radiological data, first with knowledge of conventional radiography, and then with knowledge of CT. The reference standard for fracture presence was based on all data. We performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses and calculated proportion of wrists with treatment changes due to CT imaging. Results Ninety-eight patients participated (63% female, mean age 53, range, 18–87 years old) with 100 wrist CTs. Conventional radiography detected true-positive fractures in 45, and CT in 61 wrists. The areas under the curve for fracture detection were 0.85 (95% CI 0.77–0.93) for conventional radiography and 0.97 (95% CI 0.93–1.00) for CT. Treatment changed in 24 (24%, 95% CI 16–33%) - 31 (31%, 95% CI 23–41%) wrists, mostly involving a decrease in the rate of cast immobilization. Conclusions Single-shot CT in patients with clinical suspicion of wrist injury increases accuracy of fracture detection. This has a significant impact therapy in this population, mainly on cast immobilization. Trial Registration We registered the study at www.clinicaltrials.gov, NL43482.091.13.

PURPOSE: To compare human observers to a mathematically derived computer model for differentiation between malignant and benign pulmonary nodules detected on baseline screening computed tomography (CT) scans.METHODS: A case-cohort study design was chosen. The study group consisted of 300 chest CT scans from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). It included all scans with proven malignancies (n = 62) and two subsets of randomly selected baseline scans with benign nodules of all sizes (n = 120) and matched in size to the cancers, respectively (n = 118). Eleven observers and the computer model (PanCan) assigned a malignancy probability score to each nodule. Performances were expressed by area under the ROC curve (AUC). Performance differences were tested using the Dorfman, Berbaum and Metz method. Seven observers assessed morphological nodule characteristics using a predefined list. Differences in morphological features between malignant and size-matched benign nodules were analyzed using chi-square analysis with Bonferroni correction. A significant difference was defined at p < 0.004.RESULTS: Performances of the model and observers were equivalent (AUC 0.932 versus 0.910, p = 0.184) for risk-assessment of malignant and benign nodules of all sizes. However, human readers performed superior to the computer model for differentiating malignant nodules from size-matched benign nodules (AUC 0.819 versus 0.706, p < 0.001). Large variations between observers were seen for ROC areas and ranges of risk scores. Morphological findings indicative of malignancy referred to border characteristics (spiculation, p < 0.001) and perinodular architectural deformation (distortion of surrounding lung parenchyma architecture, p < 0.001; pleural retraction, p = 0.002).CONCLUSIONS: Computer model and human observers perform equivalent for differentiating malignant from randomly selected benign nodules, confirming the high potential of computer models for nodule risk estimation in population based screening studies. However, computer models highly rely on size as discriminator. Incorporation of other morphological criteria used by human observers to superiorly discriminate size-matched malignant from benign nodules, will further improve computer performance.

Contains fulltext : 167183.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) We present a method for automatic separation and classification of pulmonary arteries and veins in computed tomography. Our method takes advantage of local information to separate segmented vessels, and global information to perform the artery-vein classification. Given a vessel segmentation, a geometric graph is constructed that represents both the topology and the spatial distribution of the vessels. All nodes in the geometric graph where arteries and veins are potentially merged are identified based on graph pruning and individual branching patterns. At the identified nodes, the graph is split into subgraphs that each contain only arteries or veins. Based on the anatomical information that arteries and veins approach a common alveolar sag, an arterial subgraph is expected to be intertwined with a venous subgraph in the periphery of the lung. This relationship is quantified using periphery matching and is used to group subgraphs of the same artery-vein class. Artery-vein classification is performed on these grouped subgraphs based on the volumetric difference between arteries and veins. A quantitative evaluation was performed on 55 publicly available non-contrast CT scans. In all scans, two observers manually annotated randomly selected vessels as artery or vein. Our method was able to separate and classify arteries and veins with a median accuracy of 89%, closely approximating the inter-observer agreement. All CT scans used in this study, including all results of our system and all manual annotations, are publicly available at "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">http://arteryvein.grand-challenge.org".

Contains fulltext : 89655.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: To select parameters that can predict which patients should receive abdominal computed tomography (CT) after high-energy blunt trauma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Abdominal CT accurately detects injuries of the abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine, but has important disadvantages. More evidence for an appropriate patient selection for CT is required. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed on consecutive adult high-energy blunt trauma patients. All patients received primary and secondary surveys according to the advanced trauma life support, sonography (focused assessment with sonography for trauma [FAST]), conventional radiography (CR) of the chest, pelvis, and spine and routine abdominal CT. Parameters from prehospital information, physical examination, laboratory investigations, FAST, and CR were prospectively recorded for all patients. Independent predictors for the presence of > or =1 injuries on abdominal CT were determined using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1040 patients were included, 309 had injuries on abdominal CT. Nine parameters were independent predictors for injuries on CT: abnormal CR of the pelvis (odds ratio [OR], 46.8), lumbar spine (OR, 16.2), and chest (OR, 2.37), abnormal FAST (OR, 26.7), abnormalities in physical examination of the abdomen/pelvis (OR, 2.41) or lumbar spine (OR 2.53), base excess

Contains fulltext : 81609.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to determine the agreement between and within surgeons concerning the influence on treatment plan of routine versus selective multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) findings in blunt trauma patients. PATIENTS: For this study, 50 patients were randomly selected from a customized database that was originally used to compare a diagnostic algorithm with a selective use of MDCT with an algorithm with routine MDCT of the spine, chest, and abdomen within the same population. In all 50 patients, routine MDCT found additional diagnoses as compared with the selective MDCT algorithm. Of all patients, paper cases were created with detailed information on clinical parameters, findings by physical examination, and radiologic findings. The cases were independently presented to three different trauma surgeons. First, the surgeons were asked for their treatment plan based upon diagnoses found by physical examination, conventional radiography, and selective MDCT alone. Subsequently they were asked for their treatment plan with knowledge of the injuries additionally found by routine MDCT. This procedure was repeated after 3 months. The agreement between and within surgeons was determined for the change of patient management because of additional findings by routine MDCT. RESULTS: The agreement on the influence of routine MDCT findings on patient management between surgeons was moderate ([kappa] = 0.46) in the first procedure and substantial in the second ([kappa] = 0.67). The agreement within surgeons ranged from moderate ([kappa] = 0.60) to excellent ([kappa] = 0.87). CONCLUSION: All surgeons agreed that the traumatic injuries additionally found by routine MDCT, frequently resulted in a change of treatment plan. There was a moderate-to-excellent agreement between and within surgeons that these additional findings resulted in a change of treatment plan.

Contains fulltext : 69921.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of arm position on image quality and effective radiation dose in an automatic exposure-controlled (AEC) multidetector thoracoabdominal computed tomography (CT) protocol in trauma patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study of the data of 177 trauma patients (117 male; median age, 39 years) was approved by the institutional ethics board, with informed patient consent waived. Patients underwent scanning by using an AEC 16-detector thoracoabdominal CT protocol in which both arms were raised above the shoulder region (standard-position group, 132 patients), one arm was raised and the other was down (one-arm group, 27 patients), or both arms were down (two-arm group, 18 patients). Objective and subjective image quality was assessed. Individual effective radiation dose was calculated from the effective tube current-time product per exposed section. For this purpose, section location-dependent conversion factors were derived by using a CT dosimetry calculator. The effect of arm position on effective dose was quantified by using linear regression analysis with correction for patient volume and attenuation. RESULTS: Compared with the image quality in the standard-position group, the image quality in the one- and two-arm groups was decreased but within acceptable diagnostic limits. The median corrected effective dose in the standard-position group was 18.6 mSv; the dose in the one-arm group was 18% (95% confidence interval: 11%, 25%) higher than this, and that in the two-arm group was 45% (95% confidence interval: 34%, 57%) higher. CONCLUSION: Omitting arm raising results in lower but acceptable image quality and a substantially higher effective radiation dose. Hence, effort should be made to position the arms above the shoulder when scanning trauma patients. Clinical trial registration no. NCT00228111.

Contains fulltext : 69546.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the added value of a low-threshold routine thoracic MDCT algorithm compared with a selective MDCT algorithm in adult blunt trauma patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in 464 consecutive blunt trauma patients who met criteria indicative of severe blunt trauma (66% male; age range, 16-93 years; median injury severity score, 13). After clinical evaluation and conventional radiography of the chest and thoracic spine, all patients underwent routine thoracic MDCT with an IV contrast agent (routine MDCT algorithm). Within this routine MDCT group, a subgroup was prospectively defined with abnormal or inconclusive clinical or conventional radiography evaluation (selective MDCT group). Two investigators determined the type, extent, and clinical impact of additional injuries found on MDCT as compared to conventional radiography for both MDCT groups. RESULTS: Of all 464 patients within the routine MDCT group, 164 patients underwent selective MDCT, which resulted in detection of additional diagnoses compared with conventional radiography in 97 (59%) patients. The routine MDCT algorithm detected additional diagnoses compared with conventional radiography in 201 of 464 patients (43%). Compared with the selective MDCT algorithm, this was an absolute increase of 104 of 464 (22%) extra patients, resulting in a change in patient management in 34 (7%; 95% CI, 5-9.7%), mostly because of additional findings of pulmonary and mediastinal injury. CONCLUSION: Routine MDCT has relatively lower, though still substantial, added diagnostic value compared with selective MDCT of the chest.

Contains fulltext : 139472.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: CT is increasingly used during the initial evaluation of blunt trauma patients. In this era of increasing cost-awareness, the pros and cons of CT have to be assessed. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to evaluate cost-consequences of different diagnostic algorithms that use thoracoabdominal CT in primary evaluation of adult patients with high-energy blunt trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared three different algorithms in which CT was applied as an immediate diagnostic tool (rush CT), a diagnostic tool after limited conventional work-up (routine CT), and a selective tool (selective CT). Probabilities of detecting and missing clinically relevant injuries were retrospectively derived. We collected data on radiation exposure and performed a micro-cost analysis on a reference case-based approach. RESULTS: Both rush and routine CT detected all thoracoabdominal injuries in 99.1% of the patients during primary evaluation (n = 1040). Selective CT missed one or more diagnoses in 11% of the patients in which a change of treatment was necessary in 4.8%. Rush CT algorithm costed euro 2676 (US$ 3660) per patient with a mean radiation dose of 26.40 mSv per patient. Routine CT costed euro 2815 (US$ 3850) and resulted in the same radiation exposure. Selective CT resulted in less radiation dose (23.23 mSv) and costed euro 2771 (US$ 3790). CONCLUSIONS: Rush CT seems to result in the least costs and is comparable in terms of radiation dose exposure and diagnostic certainty with routine CT after a limited conventional work-up. However, selective CT results in less radiation dose exposure but a slightly higher cost and less certainty.

Objective Currently CT is rapidly implemented in the evaluation of trauma patients. In anticipation of a large international multicentre trial, this study9s aim was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of a new diagnostic protocol, used for the primary radiological evaluation in adult blunt high-energy trauma patients, especially for the use of CT. Methods An evidence-based flow chart was created with criteria based on trauma mechanism, physical examination and laboratory analyses to indicate appropriateness of conventional radiography (CR), sonography and CT of head, cervical spine and trunk. To evaluate this protocol, the authors prospectively included 81 consecutive patients. Collected data included protocol adherence and number and type of performed CR and CT scans. The authors also determined the time needed to perform radiological investigations, adverse events in the CT room and clinically relevant missed injuries after 1-month clinical follow-up. Results There was 99% adherence to the protocol concerning CT. Seventy-nine patients (98%) received one or more CT scans: 72 (89%) had thoracoabdominal, 78 (96%) cervical spine and 54 (67%) had cranial CT. In 30 patients, one or more CT scans of body regions could be omitted. In 38%, CR was wrongly omitted or performed incorrectly at a variance with the protocol. No major adverse events occurred in the CT room and no clinically relevant injuries were missed. Conclusions The authors introduced a diagnostic protocol that seems feasible and safe for the evaluation of adult blunt high-energy trauma patients. Implementation of this protocol has the potential to reduce unnecessary radiological investigations, especially CT scans.

Contains fulltext : 87857.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to derive parameters that predict which high-energy blunt trauma patients should undergo computed tomography (CT) for detection of chest injury. METHODS: This observational study prospectively included consecutive patients (>or=16 years old) who underwent multidetector CT of the chest after a high-energy mechanism of blunt trauma in one trauma centre. RESULTS: We included 1,047 patients (median age, 37; 70% male), of whom 508 had chest injuries identified by CT. Using logistic regression, we identified nine predictors of chest injury presence on CT (age >or=55 years, abnormal chest physical examination, altered sensorium, abnormal thoracic spine physical examination, abnormal chest conventional radiography (CR), abnormal thoracic spine CR, abnormal pelvic CR or abdominal ultrasound, base excess or=1 positive predictors, 484 had injury on CT (95% of all 508 patients with injury). Of all 192 patients with no positive predictor, 24 (13%) had chest injury, of whom 4 (2%) had injuries that were considered clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: Omission of CT in patients without any positive predictor could reduce imaging frequency by 18%, while most clinically relevant chest injuries remain adequately detected. 01 april 2010

Contains fulltext : 88962.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) is a more sensitive modality as compared with conventional radiography (CR) in detecting pulmonary injuries. MDCT often detects pulmonary contusion that is not visualized by CR, defined as occult pulmonary contusion (OPC). The aim of this study was to investigate whether OPC on MDCT has implications for the outcome in blunt trauma patients. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data from 1,040 adult high-energy blunt trauma patients who were primarily presented at our emergency department and who underwent CR and MDCT of the chest. All patients with pulmonary contusion were identified and divided into two groups: The "CR/computed tomography (CT) group" consisted of patients with pulmonary contusion visible on both CR and MDCT. The "CT-only" group consisted of patients with OPC, visible exclusively on MDCT. The control group consisted of blunt trauma patients without pulmonary contusion. These groups were compared with respect to difference in mortality and other outcome measures. In addition, a multivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five patients suffered pulmonary contusion: The CT-only group consisted of 157 and the CR/CT group of 98 patients. The CT-only group did not differ from the control group with respect to mortality rate and other outcome measures. However, compared with the CR/CT group, mortality rate was significantly lower (8% versus 16%, p = 0.039) and most other outcome measures were significantly better in the CT-only group. CONCLUSION: OPC on MDCT is not associated with a worse outcome as compared with patients without pulmonary contusion. OPC has a better outcome as compared with pulmonary contusion visible on both CR and MDCT. 01 februari 2010

Contains fulltext : 81608.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Discussion still remains whether computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine should be performed routinely after blunt trauma with high energy impact or only in restricted situations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the additional value of a routine CT algorithm as compared with a more restricted, selective CT algorithm. MATERIALS: This prospective study consisted of 465 patients that met the inclusion criteria of our high-energy trauma protocol. All patients underwent physical examination, abdominal ultrasound (AUS), and conventional radiography (CR) of the pelvis and lumbar spine and subsequently routine CT of the abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine. Before CT, a subgroup of patients with abnormal physical examination or CR or AUS was prospectively defined as the selective CT group. Type and extent of injuries and impact on treatment were recorded for both the routine CT group and the selective CT subgroup. RESULTS: Of all patients, 42 received selective CT of the abdomen, 71 of the pelvis, and 48 of the lumbar spine. Compared with the algorithm with selective CT, routine CT revealed additional traumatic injuries in 15% of the patients in the abdomen, in 2.4% in the pelvis and in 8.2% in the lumbar spine. This resulted in an overall change of treatment in 6.4% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-9.0) of the patients who would not have received CT in a selective CT algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with an algorithm with selective CT, an algorithm with routine CT finds substantially more clinically relevant diagnoses, even in patients with unsuspicious clinical examination, normal CR, and normal AUS.

Contains fulltext : 80538.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) AIM: To identify and to evaluate predictors that determine whether chest computed tomography (CT) is likely to reveal relevant injuries in adult blunt trauma patients. METHODS: After a comprehensive literature search for original studies on blunt chest injury diagnosis, two independent observers included studies on the accuracy of parameters derived from history, physical examination, or diagnostic imaging that might predict injuries at (multidetector row) CT in adults and that allowed construction of 2x2 contingency tables. For each article, methodological quality was scored and relevant predictors for injuries at CT were extracted. For each predictor, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) including 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Of 147 articles initially identified, the observers included 10 original studies in consensus. Abnormalities at physical examination (abnormal respiratory effort, need for assisted ventilation, reduced airentry, coma, chest wall tenderness) and pelvic fractures were significant predictors (DOR: 2.1-6.7). The presence of any injuries at conventional radiography of the chest (eight articles) was a more powerful significant predictor (DOR: 2.2-37). Abnormal chest ultrasonography (four articles) was the most accurate predictor for chest injury at CT (DOR: 491-infinite). CONCLUSION: The current literature indicates that in blunt trauma patients with abnormal physical examination, abnormal conventional radiography, or abnormal ultrasonography of the chest, CT was likely to reveal relevant chest injuries. However, there was no strong evidence to suggest that CT could be omitted in patients without these criteria, or whether these findings are beneficial for patients.

Contains fulltext : 52750.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Multidetector computed tomography (CT) is more sensitive and specific in detecting traumatic injuries than conventional radiology is. However, still little is known about the diagnostic value and the therapeutic impact of indicated thoraco-abdominal CT scan when it is performed in addition to the complete conventional radiologic work-up for blunt trauma patients. METHODS: Clinical and radiologic data from 106 consecutive blunt trauma patients were reviewed. Diagnoses revealed by conventional work-up of the chest, abdomen, pelvis, and thoracolumbar spine were compared with that detected by CT scan of the chest and abdomen. Unexpected findings by CT scan and rejected diagnoses by CT scan were collected. Therapeutic consequences of these diagnoses were determined both theoretically and collected from the medical records. RESULTS: In 74% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65-82) of the 106 patients, 1 or more diagnoses were demonstrated by chest or abdominal CT scan, whereas they had not been revealed by preceding conventional work-up. This resulted in an actual change of treatment in 34% (95% CI 25-43) of the patients. CT scan of the chest resulted in a change of treatment in 33% (95% CI 23-44) and abdominal CT scan in 16% (95% CI 9-24). CONCLUSIONS: CT scan of the chest and abdomen has a high diagnostic value in the evaluation of blunt trauma patients, when it is selectively performed in addition to the early conventional radiologic work-up. Unexpected pathologic findings are detected by CT scan in the majority of the patients. These findings result in an adaptation of treatment in a substantial number of the patients.

Brink, Monique Dekker, Helena M de Lange, Frank Edwards, Michael J R Comment Letter United States J Trauma. 2011 Apr;70(4):1016; author reply 1016-7.