Restore cervical sagittal alignment by cervical disc arthroplasty and systematic total bilateral uncuscectomy in severe spondylosis: A prospective study.

Introduction: Severe spondylosis is common and represents contraindication to achieve cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). Research question: Is it possible to restore cervical sagittal alignment using an adequate prosthetic model and performing systematic bilateral total uncuscectomy (or uncinectomy), even in cases of severe spondylosis ? Material and methods: We propose a prospective clinical and radiological study comparing the evolution of preoperative and postoperative cervical sagittal balance 1 year after the interposition of a prosthesis with mobile bearing and systematic total uncuscectomy. VAS for brachialgia and cervicalgia, NDI, Odom's criteria, C2-C7 Cobb angle, C2-C7 SVA, T1 slope, C2 slope, C1-C2 Cobb angle, and segmental Cobb angle were analyzed preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Results: 73 patients for a total of 129 levels treated were analyzed. Patients showed significant improvements in VASb, VASc, NDI, and Odom's criteria one year after surgery without clinical differences in the severe spondylosis subgroup (41 patients for 77 levels treated). Our results showed an increase in the C2-C7 Cobb angle postoperatively and a better correlation between T1 slope and C2-C7 Cobb angle postoperatively than preoperatively. Postoperative radiological results were similar between the spondylosis and non-spondylosis subgroups. However preoperative C2-C7 Cobb angle and preoperative ROM were lower in the severe spondylosis subgroup. Discussion and conclusion: This study showed the possibility of restoring cervical sagittal balance by performing cervical disc arthroplasty with systematic uncuscectomy, even in cases of severe spondylosis. Moreover, we propose a simplified mathematical formula to preoperatively evaluate the lack of angulation to restore sagittal cervical alignment.

Efficacy of Chest CT for COVID-19 Pneumonia Diagnosis in France.

Background The role and performance of chest CT in the diagnosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remains under active investigation. Purpose To evaluate the French national experience using chest CT for COVID-19, results of chest CT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays were compared together and with the final discharge diagnosis used as the reference standard. Materials and Methods A structured CT scan survey (NCT04339686) was sent to 26 hospital radiology departments in France between March 2, 2020, and April 24, 2020. These dates correspond to the peak of the national COVID-19 epidemic. Radiology departments were selected to reflect the estimated geographic prevalence heterogeneities of the epidemic. All symptomatic patients suspected of having COVID-19 pneumonia who underwent both initial chest CT and at least one RT-PCR test within 48 hours were included. The final discharge diagnosis, based on multiparametric items, was recorded. Data for each center were prospectively collected and gathered each week. Test efficacy was determined by using the Mann-Whitney test, Student t test, χ2 test, and Pearson correlation coefficient. P < .05 indicated a significant difference. Results Twenty-six of 26 hospital radiology departments responded to the survey, with 7500 patients entered; 2652 did not have RT-PCR test results or had unknown or excess delay between the RT-PCR test and CT. After exclusions, 4824 patients (mean age, 64 years ± 19 [standard deviation], 2669 male) were included. With final diagnosis as the reference, 2564 of the 4824 patients had COVID-19 (53%). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of chest CT in the diagnosis of COVID-19 were 2319 of 2564 (90%; 95% CI: 89, 91), 2056 of 2260 (91%; 95% CI: 91, 92), 2056 of 2300 (89%; 95% CI: 87, 90), and 2319 of 2524 (92%; 95% CI: 91, 93), respectively. There was no significant difference for chest CT efficacy among the 26 geographically separate sites, each with varying amounts of disease prevalence. Conclusion Use of chest CT for the initial diagnosis and triage of patients suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 was successful. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Colonoscopic Findings in Patients With Incidental Colonic Focal FDG Uptake.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of FDG-avid and non-FDG-avid lesions detected at colonoscopy in patients presenting with incidental focal colonic FDG uptake at PET/CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 9073 patients who underwent PET/CT over a 4-year period, 82 patients without a history of colonic disease had focal colonic FDG uptake and underwent colonoscopy. In consensus, a radiologist and a nuclear physician read images from these PET/CT examinations. They recorded the location of focal FDG uptake in the colon and associated CT abnormalities and measured maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and metabolic volume (MV). Readings were performed twice--first without and second with knowledge of lesion location at colonoscopy. The final diagnosis was based on colonoscopic findings and histopathologic results categorized into benign, premalignant, or malignant. RESULTS: One hundred seven foci of colonic FDG uptake at PET/CT and 150 lesions at colonoscopy were detected. Among 107 foci of FDG uptake, 65 (61%) corresponded to a lesion at colonoscopy (true-positive findings), and 42 (39%) did not (false-positive findings). Among 150 lesions found at colonoscopy, 85 (57%) were not FDG avid (false-negative findings). The MV of true-positive findings was lower than that of false-positive findings (4.0 ± 0.4 cm(3) vs 6.2 ± 0.7 cm(3); p = 0.006), but SUVmax did not differ (7.4 ± 0.5 vs 7.7 ± 0.5; p = 0.649). Considering the histopathologic categories of the lesions and the false-positive findings, there was no difference in SUVmax (p = 0.103), but MV was lower in premalignant lesions than in false-positive findings (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Focal colonic FDG uptake may indicate the presence of a benign, pre-malignant, or malignant lesion. Subsequent colonoscopy should not be restricted to the colonic site of FDG uptake.