Predictive value of abdominal CT in evaluating internal herniation after bariatric laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Internal herniation, a serious complication after bariatric surgery, is challenging to diagnose. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of abdominal CT in diagnosing internal herniation. METHODS: The study included consecutive patients who had undergone laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery between 1 January 2011 and 1 January 2015 at a bariatric centre of excellence. To select patients suspected of having internal herniation, reports of abdominal CT and reoperations up to 1 January 2017 were screened. CT was presumed negative for internal herniation if no follow-up CT or reoperation was performed within 90 days after the initial CT, or no internal herniation was found during reoperation. The accuracy of abdominal CT in diagnosing internal herniation was calculated using two-way contingency tables. RESULTS: A total of 1475 patients were included (84·7 per cent women, mean age 46·5 years, median initial BMI 41·8 kg/m2 ). CT and/or reoperation was performed in 192 patients (13·0 per cent) in whom internal herniation was suspected. Internal herniation was proven laparoscopically in 37 of these patients. The incidence of internal herniation was 2·5 per cent. An analysis by complaint included a total of 265 episodes, for which 247 CT scans were undertaken. CT was not used to investigate 18 episodes, but internal herniation was encountered in one-third of these during reoperation. Combining the follow-up and intraoperative findings, the accuracy of CT for internal herniation had a sensitivity of 83·8 (95 per cent c.i. 67·3 to 93·2) per cent, a specificity of 87·1 (81·7 to 91·2) per cent, a positive predictive value of 53·4 (40·0 to 66·5) per cent and a negative predictive value of 96·8 (92·9 to 98·7) per cent. CONCLUSION: Abdominal CT is an important tool in diagnosing internal herniation, with a high specificity and a high negative predictive value.

[A boy with a white striped knee on a radiograph]. / Witte strepen op een röntgenfoto van de knie.

A 10-year-old boy presented at the radiology department with pain in the right knee. Radiographs of the knee revealed dens metaphyseal bands and subchondral epiphyseal sclerosis as a result of periodic bisphosphonate administration for the treatment of Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease three years ago.

Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the characteristics of low suspicion lesions (BI-RADS 0) at blinded and non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms and to determine the potential effect of arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader on screening outcome. METHODS: We included a series of 84,927 consecutive digital screening mammograms, double read in a blinded (43,184 screens) or non-blinded (41,743 screens) fashion, between July 2009 and July 2011. Discrepant readings were routinely recalled for further evaluation. During 2 years of follow-up, radiology, surgical and pathology reports were collected of all recalled women. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls (only one radiologist assigning a BI-RADS 0 score) was retrospectively performed by a third screening radiologist. RESULTS: At blinded and non-blinded double reading, 32.0% and 32.5% of recalls were assigned BI-RADS 0 with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 7.2% and 6.8%, respectively. Compared to non-blinded double reading, BI-RADS 0 recalls at blinded double reading showed a higher discrepancy rate (9.0 versus 4.3 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001) and false positive recall rate (10.1 versus 8.4 per 1000 screens, p = 0.012). Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls would have significantly lowered recall rate (from 3.4% to 2.8% at blinded double reading, p < 0.001, and from 2.8% to 2.5% at non-blinded double reading, p = 0.008), without a decrease in cancer detection rate (from 7.5‰ to 7.3‰, p = 0.751, and from 6.6‰ to 6.5‰, p = 0.832, respectively) and program sensitivity (from 83.2% to 81.2%, p = 0.453, and from 76.0% to 74.6%, p = 0.667, respectively). Arbitration would have significantly increased the PPV at blinded double reading (from 22.3% to 26.3%, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: We advise arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls, at (non-)blinded double reading of screening mammograms, to reduce recall rates and improve the PPV of recall at blinded double reading.