Clinical Outcomes for Open Hip Abductor Repair Using Tenodesis and Bone Trough Repair Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Hip abductor complex tears remain an injury without a clear consensus on management. Surgical treatment has been recommended after unsuccessful nonoperative management. This study evaluates both tenodesis and bone trough techniques, with treatment choices guided by previously described tear classification. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 45 hips in 44 patients who underwent surgical treatment for symptomatic, chronic hip abductor tear unresponsive to nonoperative treatment. Demographics and preoperative and postoperative values (including visual analog scale pain scores, gait assessment, and muscle strength) were evaluated. Type I tears were treated using tendon tenodesis. Type II tears were treated through a bone trough repair. RESULTS: Forty-five hips (44 patients) were operated on with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. There were 27 type I and 18 type II tears. Eighty-seven percent of patients were female. Twenty-eight percent of type II patients (5/18) had a preexisting arthroplasty in place. Significant improvements in pain (P < .001), gait (P < .001), and muscle strength (P < .001) were achieved in both the tear types. Type I repairs showed superior results to type II repairs. However, both showed significant improvements. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging at 6 months showed healed tenodesis in 81% (17/21) of type I tears and 50% (5/10) of type II tears. CONCLUSION: Our study shows improvement in pain and function after surgical repair of hip abductor tendon injuries in both simple and complex tears. This improvement is seen even during ongoing surgical site healing. Magnetic resonance imaging findings may remain abnormal for more than 1 year after surgery and do not clearly denote repair failure.

Contemporary Imaging of the Surgically Placed Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Pump.

Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of chemotherapy is a locoregional treatment strategy for hepatic malignancy involving placement of a surgically implanted pump or percutaneous port-catheter device into a branch of the hepatic artery. HAI has been used for metastatic colorectal cancer for decades but has recently attracted new attention because of its potential impact on survival, when combined with systemic therapy, in patients presenting with unresectable hepatic disease. Although various HAI device-related complications have been described, little attention has been given to their appearance on imaging. Radiologists are uniquely positioned to identify these complications given that patients receiving HAI therapy typically undergo frequent imaging and may have complications that are delayed or clinically unsuspected. Therefore, this article reviews the multimodality imaging considerations of surgically implanted HAI devices. The role of imaging in routine perioperative assessment, including the normal postoperative appearance of the device, is described. The imaging findings of potential complications, including pump pocket complications, catheter or arterial complications, and toxic or ischemic complications, are presented, with a focus on CT. Familiarity with the device and its complications will aid radiologists in playing an important role in the treatment of patients undergoing HAI therapy.

Anatomy, Imaging, and Pathologic Conditions of the Brachial Plexus.

The brachial plexus is an intricate anatomic structure with an important function: providing innervation to the upper extremity, shoulder, and upper chest. Owing to its complex form and longitudinal course, the brachial plexus can be challenging to conceptualize in three dimensions, which complicates evaluations in standard orthogonal imaging planes. The components of the brachial plexus can be determined by using key anatomic landmarks. Applying this anatomic knowledge, a radiologist should then be able to identify pathologic appearances of the brachial plexus by using imaging modalities such as MRI, CT, and US. Brachial plexopathies can be divided into two broad categories that are based on disease origin: traumatic and nontraumatic. In the traumatic plexopathy group, there are distinct imaging findings and management methods for pre- versus postganglionic injuries. For nontraumatic plexopathies, having access to an accurate patient history is often crucial. Knowledge of the timing of radiation therapy is critical to diagnosing post-radiation therapy brachial plexopathy. In acute brachial neuritis, antecedent stressors occur within a specific time frame. Primary and secondary tumors of the brachial plexus are not uncommon, with the most common primary tumors being peripheral nerve sheath tumors. Direct extension and metastasis from primary malignancies such as breast and lung cancer can occur. Although diagnosing a brachial plexus anomaly is potentially perplexing, it can be straightforward if it is based on foundational knowledge of anatomy, imaging findings, and pathologic features. ©RSNA, 2020.

Interpretive Differences Between Patients and Radiologists Regarding the Diagnostic Confidence Associated With Commonly Used Phrases in the Radiology Report.

OBJECTIVE: Despite patients' increasing interest in reading their own imaging results, little is known about how patients interpret the reporting terminology of radiologists. The purpose of this study was to survey patients and radiologists to improve understanding of how each group views commonly used phrases within the radiology report. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients and radiologists were asked to assign a numerical likelihood of the presence of metastatic disease based on their understanding of radiology report phrasing. Commonly used qualifying phrases, such as "likely represents," "concerning for," and "cannot exclude" were evaluated to compare differences in interpretation between patients and radiologists. Potential responses for statistical likelihoods included 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-99%, and 100%. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the two groups with respect to assigned statistical likelihoods for most phrases. Patients identified the phrase "probably meta-static disease" as conferring the highest likelihood of true malignancy, even though radiologists rated this phrase as conferring the sixth highest likelihood (p = 0.002). Radiologists consistently identified the phrase "diagnostic for metastatic disease" as conveying the highest likelihood of metastatic disease, whereas patients ranked this phrase as having the third highest numerical likelihood (p < 0.001). The phrase "cannot exclude cancer" was assigned the lowest numerical likelihood by both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients and radiologists have differing perceptions of the specific semantic meaning of the language in radiology reports. A variable interpretation of the radiologist's diagnostic confidence may lead to confusion and dissatisfaction with the report. Radiologists should consider that patients read their reports and should endeavor to use strategies to convey imaging results clearly and effectively.

Radiology Reporting: Current Practices and an Introduction to Patient-Centered Opportunities for Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: As health care evolves, the radiology report must also change to satisfy referring physician and patient expectations. Knowledge of the issues and controversies regarding a patient-centered approach to reporting practices is important. This article will aid the radiologist in this endeavor by summarizing key facets of radiology reporting, including current reporting standards and emerging patient-centered concepts in report language, formatting, and delivery. CONCLUSION: Future efforts to improve radiology reporting practices need to account for the needs of an increasingly heterogeneous audience that includes patients. Radiologists must exploit information technologies to craft and deliver meaningful patient-centered reports. A modern radiology report will be a powerful, flexible document that strengthens the connection between the radiologist and the patient.

JOURNAL CLUB: Structured Feedback From Patients on Actual Radiology Reports: A Novel Approach to Improve Reporting Practices.

OBJECTIVE: Patient perceptions of radiology reports are largely unknown. The objective of the present study is to describe our experience receiving structured feedback from patients on actual radiology reports as a means of improving reporting practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight reports (two for radiographs, two for ultrasound images, two for CT scans, and two for MR images) were randomly selected from our system for review. For each report, patients were asked to rate their level of comprehension, identify any problems in the report, and, in the free-text portion of the feedback form, indicate any questions about the report that they may have. Potentially confounding factors were also examined. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients (46 men and 58 women) participated in the study (for a total of 832 evaluations). The median score for report comprehension was 2.5 (on a scale of 1-5), with the most common problems affecting comprehension identified as "unclear or technical language" (mentioned in 59.6% of evaluations) and the report being "too long" (mentioned in 10.2% of evaluations). A request for an explanation of the report in lay terms (noted in 20.1% of evaluations) was the most common request mentioned in the free-text portion of the feedback form. An inverse relationship existed between report length and patient comprehension (p < 0.001). Patients who had prior experience with their own radiology reports indicated having greater comprehension than did patients with no prior experience (p = 0.003). No correlation between the educational status and report comprehension of the patients was identified (p = 0.488). CONCLUSION: Radiology reports are not well understood by patients, who identify technical language and the long length of reports as the most common problems affecting their comprehension. Longer reports tend to be less well understood.

Drill-Assisted Biopsy of the Axial and Appendicular Skeleton: Safety, Technical Success, and Diagnostic Efficacy.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, technical success rate, and diagnostic efficacy of drill-assisted axial and appendicular bone biopsies. During a 3-y period, 703 drill-assisted biopsies were performed. The cohort included 54.2% men, with a mean age of 57.6 y ± 17.1. Median lesion volume was 10.9 mL (interquartile range, 3.4-30.2 mL). Lesions were lytic (31.7%), sclerotic (21.2%), mixed lytic and sclerotic (27.7%), or normal radiographic bone quality (19.3%). No complications were reported. The technical biopsy success rate was 99.9%. Crush artifact was present in 5.8% of specimens submitted for surgical pathologic examination, and 2.1% of specimens were inadequate for histologic evaluation.