Lateral meniscal posterior root tears experience acceptable healing status after transtibial repair technique.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient MRI results, demography and clinical outcome following transtibial repair of lateral and medial meniscal posterior root tears. METHODS: Patients treated with transtibial repairs of posterior meniscal root tears from 2015 through 2018 performed pre- and postoperative MRI scans. Outcome measures were continuity/discontinuity of the meniscal root and change in meniscal extrusion on MRI. Other outcomes were KOOS, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale and the Global Rate of Change (GRoC) score for function and pain at follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-series. RESULTS: Of 41 patients, 36 attended follow-up at mean 26 (12-38) months postoperatively. At follow-up, 11 out of 18 lateral meniscus posterior root tear (LMPRT) versus 5 out of 18 medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) repairs were classified as healed. Meniscal extrusion decreased in LMPRTs from of 2.3 ± 1.5 mm to 1.4 ± 1.09 mm (p = 0.080) and increased in MMPRTs from 3.1 ± 1.6 mm to 4.8 ± 1.9 mm (p = 0.005) at FU (between-group difference, p < 0.001). LMPRT repairs were associated with ACL injury and additional meniscal injury and were younger and with lower BMI. No between-group differences were found for KOOS, Lysholm or GRoC Function scores. Tegner scale was higher and GRoC Pain score lower in the LMPRT group compared to the MMPRTs. CONCLUSION: Following transtibial repair for meniscal posterior root repairs, the LMPRTs had a higher frequency of healing, whereas most MMPRTs continued to extrude, despite surgical intervention. The study confirmed that LMPRTs and MMPRTs differ in demography and associated injuries.

Double reading of radiological examinations in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Double reading of images is a part of the quality assurance activities at many radiological centers. PURPOSE: To investigate the extent of and routines for double reading in Norway and the institutional heads' attitudes toward double reading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire was addressed to the heads of all radiological institutions in Norway. The questionnaire concerned staffing, examinations performed, extent of double reading per imaging modality (except mammography screening), guidelines for double reading, checks of completed radiology reports, frequency of regular quality assurance meetings to discuss missed findings, and the heads' attitudes toward double reading. RESULTS: The response rate was 73% (53/73). The percentage across imaging modalities of examinations being double read was 41% overall: 56% at university hospitals, 37% at local hospitals, and 18% at private centers. Double reading was most common for positron emission tomography (PET)/PET-computed tomography (CT) examinations (100%), and clinical mammography (91%). Almost all examinations read by residents were double read. Only 15% of institutions had written guidelines for double reading, 15% performed random double readings of completed examinations, and 55% organized regular meetings to discuss missed findings. Forty-six percent of the institutional heads wanted an increased use of double reading. CONCLUSION: Double reading is common in Norway, especially in residency training, mammography, and PET/PET-CT. It is less common at private centers. Established routines for double reading are scarce. Many institutional heads want more double reading. The potential of double reading to assure quality in radiology should be better exploited.