Interventional radiology training in the UK: a view from within-a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: Interventional radiology (IR) training in the UK has evolved since recognition as a subspecialty in 2010 and introduction of a new curriculum in 2021. The changing landscape, increasing workload and COVID-19 have affected training. The purpose of this study was to review trainees' perspectives on training and develop strategies to further improve training. METHODS: Online survey approved by the British Society of Interventional Radiology Council distributed to British Society of Interventional Radiology Trainee members between 9 March 22 and 25 March 2022. The survey was open to all UK based ST4-6 IR trainees and fellows. Descriptive and thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: 43 responses were received from 17/19 UK training regions. Females represented 10% (4/41) and 5% (2/43) less than full time (LTFT) trainees. 82% (31/38) felt their curriculum was suitable for their training and 28/38 (74%) were satisfied with IR training. Vascular IR, Interventional Oncology, paediatrics and stroke thrombectomy were identified as areas of training desiring improvement. 45% (18/40) stated exposure to IR led clinics and 17.5% (7/40) to IR led ward rounds. Only 6/38 (15.7%) received structured IR teaching at least once a month. Approximately, a third of respondents (13/38) stated training opportunities were significantly compromised secondary to COVID-19. CONCLUSION: This survey shows overall good satisfaction with IR training. However, improved training opportunities in vascular IR, interventional oncology, paediatric IR and stroke thrombectomy are required. In addition, access to clinics, ward rounds and protected time for research is needed to improve training quality. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: New national UK IR training survey.

Compliance with established guidelines for the radiological reporting of atypical femoral fractures.

OBJECTIVE: Atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) are important to diagnose early to avoid progression to complete fracture. We set out to determine the reporting accuracy of AFFs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of imaging performed between November 2010 and June 2013 to analyse the X-ray reporting of AFFs and to describe the key clinical considerations. Radiological reports were reviewed from the 3805 separate femoral images for search terms thought likely to identify AFFs. This identified 1558 patients. The identified radiographs were reviewed by radiologists with reference to the 2010 American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) criteria. RESULTS: Within these 1558 patients, 16 patients met the radiological criteria for AFF according to the 2010 ASBMR task force statement of which, although all were identified as fractures, 15 were not reported as "atypical" by the original reporting author and none was formally classified as AFF by the original reporting author. Within the 1558 patients, there were an additional 17 patients labelled as having "atypical" fracture features originally, although only 1 patient met the 2010 ASBMR task force criteria for AFF. Only 13 of 16 patients had imaging of the contralateral femur, and there was a significant delay for those who were imaged (111 ± 44 days). Furthermore, two of the patients with an AFF had previous radiographs demonstrating cortical changes indicative of AFFs prior to formal diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Whilst AFFs are rare diagnoses, the compliance with published guidelines for their radiological classification is low. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We have raised awareness of the importance of recognizing AFFs to guide management.