Comparing Accuracy of Night Radiology Interpretations for Pediatric Trauma: Radiology Residents Versus Attending Teleradiologists.

Background: Overnight radiology coverage for pediatric trauma patients (PTPs) is addressed with a combination of on-call radiology residents (RRs) and/or attending teleradiologists (ATs); however, the accuracy of these two groups has not been investigated for PTPs. We aimed to compare the accuracy of RRs vs AT interpretations of computed tomography (CT) scans for PTPs. Methods: Pediatric trauma patients (<18 years old) at a single level-I adult/level-II pediatric trauma center were studied in a retrospective analysis (3/2019-5/2020). Computed tomography scans interpreted by both RRs and ATs were included. Radiology residents were compared to ATs for time to interpretation (TTI) and accuracy compared to faculty attending radiologist interpretation, using the validated RADPEER scoring system. Additionally, RR and AT accuracies were compared to a previously studied adult cohort during the same time-period. Results: 42 PTPs (270 interpretations) and 1053 adults (8226 interpretations) were included. Radiology residents had similar rates of discrepancy (13.3% vs 13.3%), major discrepancy (4.4% vs 4.4%), missed findings (9.6% vs 12.6%), and overcalls (3.7% vs .7%) vs ATs (all P > .05). Mean TTI was shorter for RRs (55.9 vs 90.4 minutes, P < .001). Radiology residents had a higher discrepancy rate for PTPs (13.3% vs 7.5%, P = .01) than adults. Attending teleradiologists had a similar discrepancy rate for PTPs and adults (13.3% vs 8.9%, P = .07). Discussion: When interpreting PTP CT imaging, RRs had similar discrepancy rates but faster TTI than ATs. Radiology residents had a higher discrepancy rate for PTP CTs than RR interpretation of adult patients, indicating both RRs and ATs need more focused training in the interpretation of PTP studies.

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders affecting diagnostic radiologists and prophylactic physical therapy regimen.

The shift from film to PACS in reading rooms, coupled with escalating case volumes, exposes radiologists to the issues of the modern computer workstation including computer work posture and work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD). Common WMSDs affecting the neck and upper extremities include cervical myofascial pain, shoulder tendonitis, lateral epicondylitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and cubital tunnel syndrome. This review examines each pathology along with its pathogenesis, clinical features, physical exam findings, and potential risk factors. Furthermore, a comprehensive 11-part physical therapy regimen that is both prophylactic and therapeutic is illustrated and described in detail. One of the objectives of this review is to advocate for the inclusion of a physical therapy regimen in the working routine of diagnostic radiologists to prevent WMSDs. A brief daily commitment to this regimen can help radiologists remain healthy and productive in order to deliver optimal patient care throughout their careers.

Utilization of Re-VASC, the Novel Retroperitoneal Neovascularity Scoring System, for Characterization of T1a Small Renal Masses.

Purpose: Early characterization of small (T1a, <4 cm) renal masses is imperative for patient care and treatment planning. Renal biopsy is a sensitive and specific procedure that can accurately differentiate small renal masses as malignant or benign. However, it is an invasive procedure with a nonnegligible complication rate and is not performed routinely at most institutions. In this study, we sought to apply the Retroperitoneal Vascularity Assessment and Scoring in Carcinoma (Re-VASC) scoring system to T1a renal masses and analyzed whether it could differentiate these masses as benign or malignant. Methods: We obtained Institutional Review Board approval to retrospectively examine the records of all patients who presented to our single, urban academic referral center for surgical treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). For the malignant group, patients with a diagnosis of T1a RCC from pathologic evaluation were included. Additionally, patients with a histopathological diagnosis of a T1a nonmalignant renal mass (fat poor-angiomyolipoma or oncocytoma) were included in our benign group. Results: This study includes 57 benign and 69 malignant T1a renal tumors. Average size for benign and malignant masses were 2.47 and 2.63, respectively (p = 0.267). Analysis demonstrated no significant difference between both groups in terms of sex, laterality, or size. The average Re-VASC score of benign and malignant masses was 0.175 and malignant masses was 0.784, respectively (p < 0.001). Additionally, the Re-VASC score was independently associated with malignancy with an odds ratio of 2.223 (p = 0.0109). Conclusion: The Re-VASC scoring system exhibits significantly greater values for malignant T1a renal masses when compared to benign masses. As a result, it shows promise as an adjunctive tool to renal biopsy for clinical decision-making. Further assessment of Re-VASC's true efficacy as a diagnostic marker will include prospective evaluation of a larger multicenter population.