Ultrasound grading of thyroid nodules using the BTA U-scoring guidelines - Is there evidence of intra-and interobserver variability?

INTRODUCTION: U-score ultrasound classification (graded U1-U5) is widely used to grade thyroid nodules based on benign and malignant sonographic features. It is well established that ultrasound is an operator-dependent imaging modality and thus more susceptible to subjective variances between operators when using imaging-based scoring systems. We aimed to assess whether there is any intra- or interobserver variability when U-scoring thyroid nodules and whether previous thyroid ultrasound experience has an effect on this variability. METHODS: A total of 14 ultrasound operators were identified (five experienced thyroid operators, five with intermediate experience and four with no experience) and were asked to U-score images from 20 thyroid cases shown as a single projection, with and without Doppler flow. The cases were subsequently rescored by the 14 operators after six weeks. The first and second round U-scores for the three operator groups were then analysed using Fleiss' kappa to assess interobserver variability and Cochran's Q test to determine any intraobserver variability. RESULTS: We found no significant interobserver variability on combined assessment of all operators with fair agreement in round 1 (Fleiss' kappa = 0.30, p <0.0001) and slight agreement in round 2 (Fleiss' kappa = 0.19, p < 0.0001). Cochran's Q test revealed no significant intraobserver variability in all 14 operators between round 1 and round 2 (all p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant inter- or intraobserver variability in the U-scoring of thyroid nodules between all participants reinforcing the validity of this scoring method in clinical practice, allaying concerns regarding potential subjective biases in reporting.

A tertiary centre experience of thoracic CT and cardiac MRI scanning in the presence of a reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitoring system: a case series review of artefact, patient safety and data preservation.

OBJECTIVE: At our tertiary cardiothoracic centre, cardiac MRI and thoracic CT scans are performed in patients with implanted LINQ devices. The degree of foreign body artefact associated with the LINQ device, and its clinical importance, has not previously been assessed. A case series review was therefore performed with a simultaneous review of patient safety and data loss events, secondary to the MRI environment. METHODS: A local database search identified LINQ device patients who underwent thoracic CT or cardiac MRI scans between March 2014 and December 2016. Images were reviewed by two radiologists, recording the presence of subcutaneous and intrathoracic artefact, and its clinical significance. Furthermore a specialist in cardiac rhythm management reviewed all LINQ data downloads undertaken before and after MRI scanning, and a search of the trust incident reporting system was performed. RESULTS: Minor subcutaneous artefact was present on all scans. Intrathoracic artefact was observed in 25.6% of thoracic CT scans and 33.3% of cardiac MRIs; however no clinically significant artefact was observed. Device downloads were only performed by 53.8% of patients prior to their MRI scan and 56.5% after their MRI scan. No adverse patient safety or data loss events were noted. CONCLUSION: The LINQ device does not produce clinically significant artefact, even when artefact extends into the intrathoracic space, which occurs in a third of MRIs and a quarter of CTs. MRI scanning of the LINQ device is safe with no evidence of inappropriate data loss. Advances in knowledge: This is the first published case series of CT and MRI scanning in LINQ patients and the first performed quantification of artefact related to the LINQ device.

An unusual pharyngeal mass.

A 37-year-old man presented with an abnormal pharyngeal sensation. Nasendoscopy demonstrated a mass projecting from the left pharyngeal wall, which could be pushed medially with external pressure. A CT scan demonstrated a fracture of the hyoid. On further questioning, the patient stated that he practised Jujitsu, a sport involving various strangling manoeuvres. He underwent a pharyngoscopy and out-fracturing of the hyoid, resulting in complete resolution of his symptoms. Hyoid fractures are uncommon and can be difficult to identify clinically, but the serious nature of associated complications highlights the importance of making the diagnosis.

Does an advanced life support course give non-anaesthetists adequate skills to manage an airway?

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, anaesthetists have provided airway management skills on resuscitation teams. Because advanced life support (ALS) courses teach practical airway management, some UK hospitals have dropped anaesthetists from cardiac arrest teams. Does the ALS course give non-anaesthetists adequate skills to manage an airway during a cardiac arrest? METHODS: We recruited adult surgical patients undergoing general anaesthesia and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion as part of their routine care. Patients were randomly assigned to airway management by a junior doctor; either an ALS-qualified anaesthetist or an ALS-qualified non-anaesthetist. After induction of anaesthesia, five manual ventilations were delivered using a self-inflating bag-mask device before insertion of a LMA. We recorded the quality of manual ventilation (adequate, partially adequate or inadequate), the time to LMA insertion, and any complications. RESULTS: Twenty anaesthetists and 16 non-anaesthetist ALS graduates participated. Of the anaesthetists, 18 (90%) demonstrated adequate and 2 (10%) demonstrated partially adequate manual ventilation skills, compared with non-anaesthetists of whom 5 (31.25%) demonstrated adequate, 5 (31.25%) demonstrated partially adequate, and 6 (37.5%) demonstrated inadequate manual ventilation skills (p<0.001). Eighteen anaesthetists (90%) and 4 non-anaesthetists (25%) met the ALS LMA insertion guideline time of 30s (p<0.0001). Median time for LMA insertion by anaesthetists and non-anaesthetists was 20.5s (range 16-40s, n=20) and 35.0 s (range 18-168, n=10) respectively (p<0.05). Six of the 16 non-anaesthetists failed to insert the LMA (37.5%). There were four complications (laryngospasm, vomiting, and SaO(2)<90%) in the non-anaesthetic group (25% of patients), compared with none in the anaesthetic group (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The airway component of an ALS course alone does not give adequate practical skills for non-anaesthetists to manage an airway in an anaesthetised patient. Airway management at a cardiac arrest is unlikely to be any better.