RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Sonographers demonstrate a high standard of diagnostic performance and work with a considerable degree of professional independence. In Australasia, sonographers typically generate a preliminary report which is reviewed by the radiologist who issues a final report. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiologist's review is required in cases reported as normal by the sonographer. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of 1000 abdominal US examinations considered normal by sonographers that were subsequently reported by radiologists. Any findings reported by radiologists that were not reported by sonographers were analysed and separated into errors or discrepancies according to commonly accepted definition. RESULTS: The 1000 abdominal examinations included 244 complete abdominal, 200 hepatobiliary, 506 urinary tract and 50 other abdominal examinations. Patients' age ranged from < 1 to 94 years (mean = 35 years, median = 32 years). US examinations were performed by any one of 14 sonographers with 1-21 years (mean = 6 years, median = 7 years) of clinical experience. Two diagnostic errors were made by sonographers and two errors by radiologists. In no single case did the radiologist uncover a case of an acute or serious illness, illness requiring admission or urgent clinical review, nor did the radiologist identify the cause for the presenting symptoms. Eighteen discrepancies were found, but these were of trivial nature and most were rated by specialist clinicians as irrelevant. CONCLUSION: Sonographers are accurate in distinguishing normal abdominal US examinations. The involvement of a radiologist in a second reading of normal abdominal US examinations is unnecessary.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Biological safety of ultrasound is a complex and nuanced subject that is poorly understood by ultrasound users. Little is known about the acoustic output and thermal index levels during the routine use of modern ultrasound machines in prenatal scanning. METHODOLOGY: This study was a retrospective review of thermal index (TI) values encountered during 300 prenatal ultrasound examinations (100 in each trimester) performed on any one of 13 Philips Epiq 7 or Epiq 5 systems, representing approximately 106.5 h of real-time scanning. The TI levels were compared to three international guidelines on the biological safety of ultrasound. RESULTS: The routine use of current Philips systems was associated with low TI levels. Of the 300 examinations reviewed, virtually all were compliant with the BMUS and Nelson safety guideline. Whether the examination was compliant with the WFUMB guideline is open to interpretation. The highest level of TI encountered was 1.1. In no instance did the TI level incur into the 'not recommended' range or into a range where specific user action was required to reduce the TI within 1 min. The most frequent action associated with TI > 0.7 was the use of M-mode to document the fetal heart rate. In the four instances where TI peaked at 1.1, 3 were associated with the use of M-mode and one with B-mode. Spectral Doppler was not implicated in high TI levels. These results are surprising and open up a range of opportunities for future study.
