Assessing Femoral Trochlear Morphologic Features on Cross-Sectional Imaging Before Trochleoplasty: Dejour Classification Versus Quantitative Measurement.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to assess the use of cross-sectional imaging to qualitatively and quantitatively categorize trochlear dysplasia as low grade (type A) or high grade (types B-D) according to the Dejour classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective review of CT and MRI knee examinations performed before patients underwent deepening trochleoplasty was independently conducted by two musculoskeletal radiologists. Each case of trochlear dysplasia was qualitatively assigned a Dejour type. Subsequently, quantitative measurements of the sulcus angle, distance from the tibial tubercle to the trochlear groove, trochlear depth, lateral trochlear inclination, trochlear facet asymmetry, and degree of patellar lateralization were performed. RESULTS. A total of 35 patients (29 female patients and six male patients; mean age, 21.1 years) with 39 affected knees (17 right knees and 22 left knees) were included. Readers had exact qualitative agreement using Dejour classification for 30 of 39 knees (77% [κ = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.91]) and agreement on classification of low-grade versus high-grade dysplasia for 36 of 39 knees (92%). For these 36 knees, the mean differences in measurements of low- versus high-grade dysplasia, respectively, were as follows: for sulcus angle, 153° versus 168° (p < 0.001); for trochlear depth, 4 versus 1 mm (p < 0.001); for lateral trochlear inclination, 12 versus 7 mm (p < 0.02); and for decreased trochlear facet asymmetry, 13% versus 92% (p < 0.001). Trochlear depth, lateral trochlear inclination, and trochlear facet asymmetry were also different in comparisons of knees with Dejour type B and C trochlear dysplasia versus those with Dejour types B and D (all p < 0.05). No quantitative measurement differentiated between trochlear dysplasia of Dejour types C and D. The distance from the tibial tubercle to the trochlear groove and the degree of patellar lateralization were not statistically different between low- and high-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSION. Qualitative use of the Dejour classification accurately categorizes trochlear dysplasia as low grade or high grade in 92% of cases, with exact agreement reached in 77% of cases. Furthermore, the trochlear depth, lateral trochlear inclination, trochlear facet asymmetry, and sulcus angle can differentiate between low-grade and high-grade dysplasia, with trochlear depth, lateral trochlear inclination, and trochlear facet asymmetry useful for differentiating between Dejour types B and C and Dejour types B and D.

Impact of a Reading Priority Scoring System on the Prioritization of Examination Interpretations.

OBJECTIVE: Our institution implemented a read priority scoring system to combat the known limitations of traditional methods for the prioritization of examination interpretations by radiologists. We aimed to determine the impact on report turnaround time (RTAT) and RTAT variability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On examination completion, technologists entered a read priority score (1-9) using provided definitions. We retrospectively reviewed the median RTAT and RTAT variability (i.e., interquartile range length) for radiology examinations (n = 615,541; 2011-2014). We used Spearman correlation coefficients to determine the relationships between read priority scores and the median RTAT and the RTAT variability by year. We compared median RTAT and RTAT variability between early (2011) versus late (2012-2014) adoption phases using distribution-free random permutation tests. RESULTS: Ranked correlations showed yearly improvement, leading to a near-perfect ranking of median RTAT (r = 0.98, p < 0.001) and a perfect ranking of RTAT variability (r = 1.00, p < 0.001) by nine levels of priority. Eight of the nine priority levels showed a reduction in median RTAT between the early and late phases, and the three most urgent levels--that is, 1, 2, and 3--improved by 23%, 5%, and 70% (all, p < 0.001), respectively. Only one priority level (4, defined as outpatient urgent [8% of studies]) showed significant worsening by 15% (p < 0.001). The three most urgent levels of priority also showed improvements in RTAT variability (61%, 17%, 71%, respectively; all, p < 0.01). Only the lowest level of priority (9) exhibited a significant worsening in RTAT variability by 9% (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: A reading priority scoring system with defined clinical scenarios yielded desirable prioritization of examination interpretations by radiologists as evidenced by appropriate and improved stratification of RTATs and RTAT variability.

Prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography have multiple uncontrolled coronary artery disease risk factors and high risk for cardiovascular events.

Limited contemporary data exist on the cardiovascular risk of patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) requiring diagnostic coronary angiography. We examined the prevalence and control of coronary artery disease risk factors and the outcomes of 367 prior CABG patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography between October 1, 2004 and May 31, 2007 at the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Mean age was 65 +/- 9 years, 97% were men, and the mean time from CABG to diagnostic angiography was 8.2 +/- 6.1 years. Hypertension, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, smoking, and obesity were suboptimally controlled in 70%, 59%, 47%, 33%, and 50%, respectively. Intake of statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers was 88% and 81%, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 1.4 +/- 0.8 years, the incidence of death and major cardiovascular events was 10% and 32%, respectively. In spite of significant improvement compared to previous studies and good compliance with indicated medications, contemporary prior CABG patients undergoing coronary angiography still have multiple and poorly controlled coronary artery disease risk factors and high risk for cardiovascular events. Novel pharmacologic and behavioral treatment strategies are needed.

Impact on contrast, fluoroscopy, and catheter utilization from knowing the coronary artery bypass graft anatomy before diagnostic coronary angiography.

To what extent the unavailability of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) anatomy complicates the performance of diagnostic coronary angiography has not been studied. The medical and catheterization records and coronary angiograms of 367 consecutive CABG surgery patients who underwent 394 diagnostic coronary angiographic studies from October 1, 2004, to May 31, 2007, were retrospectively reviewed. The patients' mean age was 65+/-9 years, and 97% were men. The mean interval from CABG surgery to angiography was 8.3+/-6.1 years. Patent left internal mammary artery grafts were found in 75%, and the mean number of patent grafts was 2.1+/-1.0. Compared with angiograms with known CABG anatomy, angiograms with unknown CABG anatomy (26%) required significantly higher amounts of contrast (189+/-7 vs 158+/-4 ml), longer fluoroscopy times (14.0+/-0.7 vs 10.6+/-0.4 minutes), and more diagnostic catheters (3.0+/-0.1 vs 2.5+/-0.05) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). The unavailability of CABG anatomy remained associated with increased contrast, fluoroscopy, and catheter use after multivariate adjustment. Proximal anastomotic bypass markers were associated with lower contrast use but were seen in only 9% of patients. In conclusion, the unavailability of CABG anatomy significantly and independently increases the use of contrast, fluoroscopy, and catheters during diagnostic coronary angiography. Every effort should be made to obtain CABG anatomy before diagnostic angiography is performed.

Impact of a Four-Point Order-Priority Score on Imaging Examination Performance Times.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitals use a traditional categoric system (eg, STAT, ASAP [as soon as possible], routine) to prioritize orders for imaging examination performance. If left undefined, these categories contain ambiguity, which contributes to errant or misused categorizations, and ultimately, lost opportunity to optimally direct resources toward timely patient care. Our hospital implemented ordinal order-priority categories with specific definitions. We sought to determine the impact of this prioritization method on examination performance time and consistency. METHODS: A four-level numeric priority system with clinical definitions for each category was implemented in 2011 to replace a traditional model for hospital imaging orders. Retrospective analysis was performed on imaging orders for three years (2011-2013) after implementation, to assess the order-to-performance time (OTPT), defined as the time between order placement by the provider and examination completion by the technologist. Consistency was measured by the length of the interquartile range for the OTPT distribution. Comparison was made to orders from the preimplementation year (2010), as a control. RESULTS: The OTPT and OTPT consistency for performed examinations were both predictably stratified by order-priority level. Relative to control, we observed a reduction in the percentage of prioritized examinations, as well as modest general improvements in OTPT and OTPT consistency. CONCLUSIONS: A revised order-priority system with ordinal categorizations and clinical definitions accompanying each priority level at order entry yielded desirable prioritization of imaging examination performance by technologists, as evidenced by appropriate stratification of turnaround times and consistency by level of priority.