Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 58(4): 549-53, 2003 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-14520288

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Review of ERCP x-ray films by radiologists is routine, but the utility of this practice is unproven. The aim of this study was to assess whether the routine post-procedural interpretation of ERCP films by radiologists alters patient management. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 212 ERCPs followed by a prospective analysis of 112 ERCPs was performed. Comparative ductogram interpretations were categorized as: I, complete agreement; II, minor findings reported only by the radiologist; III, findings reported only by the endoscopist; and IV, major findings reported only by the radiologist that altered or should have altered management. RESULTS: In the retrospective analysis, 289 ductograms were identified, and interpretations were classified as: category I, 73%; category II, 16%; category III, 10.7%; and category IV, 0.3%. In the prospective study, interpretations of 167 ductograms were analyzed and classified as follows: category I, 84%; category II, 11%; category III, 5%; category IV, none. CONCLUSIONS: Post-procedure interpretation of ERCP spot x-ray films by radiologists adds little to patient management. Selective consultation with radiologists would appear to be more appropriate than review by radiologists of ERCP spot x-ray films on a routine basis.


Subject(s)
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...