Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Acad Radiol ; 25(12): 1577-1581, 2018 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29661602

RESUMO

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the average time for breast radiologists of varied experience to interpret automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A reader performance study was conducted on female patients, with ACR BI-RADS 4 breast density classifications of C or D, who received both an ABUS screening examination and a digital mammogram from 2013 to 2014 at an academic institution. Three faculty breast radiologists with varied levels of ABUS experience (advanced, intermediate, novice) read all ABUS examinations, with interpretation times and final impressions (categorized as "normal" or "abnormal") recorded for each examination. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included, with all readers demonstrating an average ABUS interpretation time of less than 3 minutes. Compared to the other two readers, the intermediate reader had a significantly longer mean interpretation time at 2.6 minutes (95% confidence interval 2.4-2.8; P < .001). In addition to having the shortest mean interpretation time, the novice reader also demonstrated reduced times in subsequent interpretations, with a significant decrease in interpretation times of 3.1 seconds (95% confidence interval 0.4-5.8) for every 10 ABUS examinations interpreted (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, mean ABUS interpretation time by radiologists of all experience levels was short, at less than 3 minutes per examination, which should not deter radiologists from incorporating ABUS examinations into a busy clinical environment.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico por imagem , Radiologia , Ultrassonografia Mamária , Idoso , Densidade da Mama , Competência Clínica , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo
2.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 209(6): 1419-1425, 2017 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28871810

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate positioning of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared with film-screen (FS) mammography positioning standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent screening FFDM in 2010-2012 and DBT in 2012-2013 at an academic institution. Examinations were performed by five experienced technologists who underwent updated standardized positioning training. Positioning criteria were assessed by consensus reads among three breast radiologists and compared with FS mammography data from a 1993 study by Bassett and colleagues. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients (n = 340 examinations) were analyzed, showing significant differences between FFDM and DBT examinations (p < 0.05) for medial or inferior skin folds (FFDM vs DBT: craniocaudal [CC] view, 16% [n = 56] vs 23% [n = 77]; mediolateral oblique [MLO] view, 35% [n = 118] vs 45% [n = 154]), inclusion of lateral glandular tissue on CC view (FFDM vs DBT, 73% [n = 247] vs 81% [n = 274]), and concave pectoralis muscle shape (FFDM vs DBT, 36% [n = 121] vs 28% [n = 95]). In comparison with Bassett et al. data, all positioning criteria for both FFDM and DBT examinations were significantly different (p < 0.05). The largest differences were found in visualization of the pectoralis muscle on CC views and the inframammary fold on MLO views, inclusion of posterior or lateral glandular tissue, and inclusion of skin folds, with DBT and FFDM more frequently exhibiting all criteria than originally reported Bassett et al. CONCLUSION: DBT and FFDM mammograms more frequently include posterior or lateral tissue, the inframammary fold on MLO views, the pectoralis muscle on CC views, and skin folds than FS mammograms. Inclusion of more breast tissue with newer technologies suggests traditional positioning standards, in conjunction with updated standardized positioning training, are still applicable at the expense of including more skin folds.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico por imagem , Mamografia , Posicionamento do Paciente/normas , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos
3.
J Okla State Med Assoc ; 100(10): 380-2, 2007 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18085094

RESUMO

A longitudinal epiphyseal bracket (LEB) is a defect of the tubular bones and has been primarily described in the hands and feet, especially the proximal phalanges, metacarpals, and metatarsals. The LEB results from a defective C-shaped secondary ossification center that brackets the diaphysis and metaphysis, causing restricted longitudinal growth in these bones with resultant shortening and angular deformities. Deformities associated with metatarsal epiphyseal bracket include a short, broad metatarsal and medial deviation of the metatarsophalangeal joint (hallux varus deformity). Excision of the cartilaginous LEB has been proposed to prevent future soft tissue contractures and osseous deformities. The LEB has been associated with numerous syndromes including Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome, Cenani-Lenz syndactyly, isolated oligosyndactyly, and Nievergelt syndrome. We describe a two-month-old patient in whom plain film and MR imaging demonstrated bilateral bracketed first metatarsals with associated hallux varus deformities. Bilateral bracket excision was performed with excellent clinical results.


Assuntos
Doenças do Desenvolvimento Ósseo , Epífises/anormalidades , Ossos do Metatarso/anormalidades , Epífises/cirurgia , Feminino , Hallux Varus/patologia , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Ossificação Heterotópica
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...