Discordance rates between preliminary and final radiology reports on cross-sectional imaging studies at a level 1 trauma center.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The goal was to determine discordance rates between preliminary radiology reports provided by on-call radiology house staff and final reports from attending radiologists on cross-sectional imaging studies requested by emergency department staff after hours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A triplicate carbon copy reporting form was developed to provide permanent records of preliminary radiology reports and to facilitate communication of discrepant results to the emergency department. Data were collected over 21 weeks to determine the number of discordant readings. Patients' medical records were reviewed to show whether discrepancies were significant or insignificant and to assess their impact on subsequent management and patient outcome. RESULTS: The emergency department requested 2830 cross-sectional imaging studies after hours and 2311 (82%) had a copy of the triplicate form stored in radiology archives. Discrepancies between the preliminary and final report were recorded in 47 (2.0%), with 37 (1.6%) considered significant: 14 patients needed no change, 13 needed a minor change, and 10 needed a major change in subsequent management. Ten (0.43%) of the discordant scans were considered insignificant. A random sample of 104 (20%) of the 519 scans without a paper triplicate form was examined. Seventy-one (68%) did have a scanned copy of the triplicate form in the electronic record, with a discrepancy recorded in 3 (4.2%), which was not statistically different from the main cohort (P = .18). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests a high level of concordance between preliminary reports from on-call radiology house staff and final reports by attending subspecialty radiologists on cross-sectional imaging studies requested by the emergency department.

Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion results in less paraspinal muscle damage than conventional open posterior fusion. METHODS: The maximum intramuscular pressure (IMP) generated by a minimally invasive and standard open retractor was compared in cadavers using an ultra-miniature pressure transducer. In a second clinical study, eight patients with either minimally invasive or open posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning approximately 6 months post surgery. MRI was used to estimate edema and atrophy within multifidus, with T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging allowing quantification of differences between the two surgical techniques. RESULTS: IMP measured with the minimally invasive retractor was 1.4 versus 4.7 kPa with the open retractor (P < 0.001). The minimally invasive retractor produced a transient maximal IMP only on initial expansion. Maximum IMP was constant throughout open retractor deployment. Striking visual differences in muscle edema were seen between open and minimally invasive groups on MRI. The mean T2 relaxation time at the level of fusion was 47 milliseconds in the minimally invasive and 90 milliseconds in the open group (P = 0.013). The mean apparent diffusion coefficient was 1357 x 10(-6) mm/s and 1626 x 10(-6) mm(2)/s (P = 0.0184), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The peak IMP generated by the minimally invasive retractor was significantly less than with the open retractor. Postoperatively, less muscle edema was demonstrated after the minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion, with lower mean T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient measurements supporting the hypothesis that less damage occurs using a minimally invasive approach.