Detection of femoroplasty on pre- and post-arthroscopic comparison radiographs following treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: multi-reader accuracy and agreement study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess diagnostic accuracy and agreement among radiologists in detecting femoroplasty on pre- and post-arthroscopic comparison frog lateral and anteroposterior (AP) pelvic radiographs after treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, 86 patients underwent hip arthroscopy (52 with and 34 without femoroplasty) for treatment of FAI syndrome. Three radiologists blinded to clinical data and chronological order of the pre- and post-arthroscopic comparison radiographs independently examined AP pelvis and frog lateral radiographs to detect femoroplasty changes. Statistical analysis outputs included diagnostic accuracy parameters and inter- and intra-observer agreement. RESULTS: Identification of femoroplasty in the frog lateral projection has mean sensitivity 70%, specificity 82%, inter-observer agreement κ 0.74-0.76 and intra-observer agreement κ 0.72-0.85. Using the AP pelvis projection to detect femoroplasty has mean sensitivity 32%, specificity 71%, inter-observer agreement κ 0.47-0.65, and intra-observer agreement κ, 0.56-0.84. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists are only moderately sensitive, though more specific, in femoroplasty detection in the frog lateral projection. The AP pelvis projection yields lower sensitivity and specificity. Both projections have moderate inter- and intra-observer agreement.

Prospective Evaluation of Agreement and Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Meniscal Tears: MR Arthrography a Short Time After Injection Versus CT Arthrography After a Moderate Delay.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of direct CT arthrography performed after a moderate injection delay with that of MR arthrography performed soon after injection in the diagnosis of meniscal tears. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent direct MR arthrography followed by same-day CT arthrography of the knee. Two blinded musculoskeletal radiologists independently reviewed the MR and CT arthrographic images for the presence of medial or lateral meniscal tears in the anterior horn, body, and posterior horn. Their readings were compared with a reference standard reading, which was based on post-MRI arthroscopic findings (n = 11) or the consensus opinion of two other musculoskeletal radiologists who simultaneously reviewed the paired CT and MR arthrographic examinations using all available clinical, surgical, and imaging information. The individual and combined radiologist agreements with the reference standard were calculated for each modality. RESULTS: Interreader agreement was 91% for MR arthrography and 85% for CT arthrography. The overall combined radiologist agreement with the reference standard was 91% for MR arthrography and 86% for CT arthrography (p = 0.03). For the two readers, the overall accuracy rates for diagnosing a meniscal tear were 82% and 88% with MR arthrography and 74% and 76% with CT arthrography. Only 50% (3/6) of surgically proven tears imbibed gadolinium. CONCLUSION: Although MR arthrography performed soon after the contrast injection had higher interreader agreement and greater accuracy, CT arthrography performed after a mean postinjection delay of 100 minutes was moderately accurate in the diagnosis of meniscal tears and can be used as an alternative procedure when MR arthrography cannot be completed.

Assessing first year radiology resident competence pre-call: development and implementation of a computer-based exam before and after the 12 month training requirement.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Whether first-year radiology residents are ready to start call after 6 or 12 months has been a subject of much debate. The purpose of this study was to establish an assessment that would evaluate the call readiness of first-year radiology residents and identify any individual areas of weakness using a comprehensive computerized format. Secondarily, we evaluated for any significant differences in performance before and after the change in precall training requirement from 6 to 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A list of >140 potential emergency radiology cases was given to first-year radiology residents at the beginning of the academic year. Over 4 years, three separate versions of a computerized examination were constructed using hyperlinked PowerPoint presentations and given to both first-year and second-year residents. No resident took the same version of the exam twice. Exam score and number of cases failed were assessed. Individual areas of weakness were identified and remediated with the residents. Statistical analysis was used to evaluate exam score and the number of cases failed, considering resident year and the three versions of the exam. RESULTS: Over 4 years, 17 of 19 (89%) first-year radiology residents passed the exam on first attempt. The two who failed were remediated and passed a different version of the exam 6 weeks later. Using the oral board scoring system, first-year radiology residents scored an average of 70.7 with 13 cases failed, compared to 71.1 with eight cases failed for second-year residents who scored statistically significantly higher. No significant difference was found in first-year radiology resident scoring before and after the 12-month training requirement prior to call. CONCLUSIONS: An emergency radiology examination was established to aid in the assessment of first-year radiology residents' competency prior to starting call, which has become a permanent part of the first-year curriculum. Over 4 years, all first-year residents were ultimately judged ready to start call. Of the variables assessed, only resident year showed a significant difference in scoring parameters. In particular, length of training prior to taking call showed no significant difference. Areas of weakness were identified for further study.