A Comparison of Radial and Horizontal Macular Optical Coherence Tomography on Detection of Macular Pathology: A Prospective Study at an Academic Institution.

Purpose: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is useful in diagnosing and monitoring retinal pathology such as age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema (DME), central serous chorioretinopathy, and epiretinal membrane, among others. This study compared the ability of horizontal (H) 25-, 13-, and 7-cut macular OCT vs 24-, 12-, and 6-cut radial (R) macular OCT in identifying various macular pathology. Methods: This was a prospective study of 161 established patients evaluated at Wilford Hall Eye Center Retina Clinic between September and October of 2019. Pathology included age-related macular degeneration, central serous chorioretinopathy, DME, and epiretinal membrane, among others. Patients obtained 25-, 13-, and 7-cut H raster OCT as well as 24-, 12-, and 6-cut R OCT. Primary outcomes were sensitivity in detecting macular fluid and each macular abnormality. Results: The 24-cut radial (R24) OCT equally or out-performed the H25 (horizontal 25-cut OCT) in detecting macular fluid across all pathological groups. Generally, a higher number of cuts correlated with better detection of fluid. In detecting any macular abnormalities, H25, R24, and R12 had 100% sensitivity. R6 OCT had near 100% sensitivity across all groups, except for DME (95%). Overall, R OCT had better sensitivity (0.960) than H OCT (0.907) in detecting macular pathology. Conclusions: R outperformed H macular OCT in detecting fluid and other abnormalities. Clinically, both scanning patterns can be used by ophthalmologists in diagnosis and management of commonly encountered macular diseases. Technicians may be able to use a variety of these scans to screen for pathology prior to physician evaluation.

Different Perceptions Exist Between Health Care Providers and the General Population Regarding the Importance of Findings on Additional Imaging for Trauma Consults.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of additional imaging for trauma consults results in the discovery of new injuries. No studies have addressed the perception of these findings in non-health care providers. Our hypothesis was that significant differences in perception of the importance of injuries would exist between health care providers (HCPs) and the general population. METHODS: Six standardized scenarios were developed detailing common new injury findings on additional imaging in trauma consults. Demographics as well as information regarding the significance of findings, potential for change in care, and the importance of patient notification were collected. Surveys were electronically distributed to HCPs in our system and the public. Data analysis was performed with generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: A total of 339 public and 129 HCP surveys were returned. HCPs included attending staff, residents, and advanced care providers from a variety of specialties. Significant differences in perception were found in traumatic brain injury, spine fractures, and rib fractures, with HCPs rating most findings as less clinically important than the general population, while rating patient notification as more important. Perceived importance decreased with increased age in the general population. Increasing HCP age or length in practice did not significantly affect perception of clinical importance, except for rib fractures. DISCUSSION: Differences in perception exist regarding the significance of additional injuries between HCPs and the general population. Perceptions of the general population also change with age. Decisions to pursue additional imaging in trauma patients should include consideration of these differences in perception to help support quality patient-centered care.

The Utility of Additional Imaging in Trauma Consults with Mild to Moderate Injury.

Limiting CT imaging in the ED has gained interest recently. After initial trauma workup for consultations in the ED, additional CT imaging is frequently ordered. We assessed the benefits of this additional imaging. Our hypothesis was that additional imaging in lower acuity trauma consults results in the diagnosis of new significant injuries with a change in treatment plan and increased Injury Severity Score (ISS). The registry at our Level I trauma center was queried from November 2015 to November 2016 for trauma consults initially evaluated by ED physicians. Patients with mild to moderate injuries were included. Injury findings before and after additional imaging were determined by chart review and pre- and postimaging ISS were calculated. Blinded trauma surgeons assessed the findings for clinical significance and changes in treatment. Four hundred and twenty-one patients were evaluated, 41 were excluded. One hundred and forty patients (37%) underwent additional CT imaging. Forty-seven patients (34%) had additional injuries found, with 16 (12%) increasing their ISS (mean 0.54, SD 1.66). Ninety-three per cent of cases resulted in at least one physician finding the new injuries clinically significant; however, agreement was low (κ = 0.095). For 70 per cent, at least one physician felt the findings warranted a change in treatment plan (κ = 0.405). Additional imaging in ED trauma consults resulted in the identification of new injuries in 1/3 of our patient sample. This suggests that current efforts to limit the use of CT imaging in trauma patients may result in significant injuries going undiscovered and undertreated. Further research is needed to determine the risk of attempts to limit imaging.