The prevalence of early contained vascular injury of spleen.

Contained vascular injuries (CVI) of spleen include pseudoaneurysms (PSA) and arterio-venous fistulae (AV-fistulae), and their reported prevalence varies. Our purpose was to assess the prevalence of early splenic CVI seen on admission CT in patients with splenic trauma admitted to a single level 1 trauma center in 2013-2021, and its detection in different CT protocols. A retrospective, single-center longitudinal cohort study. Nine-year data (2013-2021) of all patients with suspected or manifest abdominal trauma were retrieved. All patients, > 15 years with an ICD code for splenic trauma (S36.0XX) were included. CT and angiographic examinations were identified. Reports and images were reviewed. Splenic CVI CT criterion was a focal collection of vascular contrast that decreases in attenuation with delayed imaging. Number of CVIs and treatment was based on medical records and/or available angioembolization data. Of 2805 patients with abdominal trauma, 313 patients (313/2805; 11.2%) fulfilled the study entry criteria. 256 patients (256/313; 81.8%) had a CT examination. Sixteen patients had splenectomy before CT, and the final study group included 240 patients (240/313; 76.7%). Median New Injury Severity Score (NISS) was 27 and 87.5% of patients had NISS > 15. Splenic CVI was found in 20 patients, which yields a prevalence of 8.3% (20/240; 95% CI 5.2-12.6%). In those cases with both late arterial and venous phase images available, CVI was seen in 14.5% of cases (18/124, 95% CI 8.6-22.0%). None of the patients with CVI died within 30 days of the injury. The prevalence of early splenic CVI in patients with a splenic trauma was 8.3-14.5% (95% CI 5.2-22.0%). Our data suggests that both arterial and venous phase are needed for CT diagnosis. The 30-day outcome in terms of mortality was good.

Interobserver agreement of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in local staging of cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in women with cervical cancer, among experienced and less experienced observers, using transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: The TVS observers were all gynecologists and consultant ultrasound specialists, six with and seven without previous experience in cervical cancer imaging. The MRI observers were five radiologists experienced in pelvic MRI and four less experienced radiology residents without previous experience in MRI of the pelvis. The less experienced TVS observers and all MRI observers underwent a short basic training session in the assessment of cervical tumor extension, while the experienced TVS observers received only a written directive. All observers were assigned the same images from cervical cancer patients at all stages (n = 60) and performed offline evaluation to answer the following three questions: (1) Is there a visible primary tumor? (2) Does the tumor infiltrate > ⅓ of the cervical stroma? and (3) Is there parametrial invasion? Interobserver agreement within the four groups of observers was assessed using Fleiss kappa (κ) with 95% CI. RESULTS: Experienced and less experienced TVS observers, respectively, had moderate interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.46 (0.40-0.53) and 0.46 (0.41-0.52)), stromal invasion > ⅓ (κ (95% CI), 0.45 (0.38-0.51) and 0.53 (0.40-0.58)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.57 (0.51-0.64) and 0.44 (0.39-0.50)). Experienced MRI observers had good interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.70 (0.62-0.78)), while less experienced MRI observers had moderate agreement (κ (95% CI), 0.51 (0.41-0.62)), and both experienced and less experienced MRI observers, respectively, had good interobserver agreement regarding stromal invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.80 (0.72-0.88) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.69 (0.61-0.77) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)). CONCLUSIONS: We found interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in patients with cervical cancer to be moderate for TVS and moderate-to-good for MRI. The level of interobserver agreement was associated with experience among TVS observers only for parametrial invasion. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

A randomized controlled trial of cemented versus cementless arthroplasty in patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture: a four-year follow-up.

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes in patients with a displaced fracture of the hip who were treated with a cemented or a cementless femoral stem. Patients and Methods: A four-year follow-up of a randomized controlled study included 141 patients who underwent surgery for a displaced femoral neck fracture. Patients were randomized to receive either a cemented (n = 67) or a cementless (n = 74) stem at hemiarthroplasty (HA; n = 83) or total hip arthroplasty (THA; n = 58). Results: Early differences in functional outcome, assessed using the Harris Hip Score, the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment score and EuroQol-5D, with better results in cemented group, deteriorated over time and there were no statistically significant differences at 48 months. Two (3%) patients in the cemented group and five (6.8%) in the cementless group underwent further surgery for a periprosthetic fracture. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.4). No patient underwent further surgery for instability or infection between one and four years postoperatively. The mortality and the radiological outcomes were similar in both groups. Conclusion: Patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture treated with an arthroplasty using a cemented or cementless stem had good function and few complications up to four years postoperatively. However, due to the poor short-term functional outcomes in the cementless group, the findings do not support their routine use in the treatment of these elderly patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1087-93.