The impact of headache disorders: a prospective analysis of headache referrals to outpatient and inpatient neurology and emergency services in an Irish University teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Headache represents a significant proportion of disability globally in general practice, neurology outpatient settings, and emergency departments. There is scant literature regarding the impact of headache on healthcare services in Ireland. AIMS: We aimed to investigate headache burden across the emergency department, inpatient stays, and neurology outpatient department referrals in an Irish University teaching hospital. METHODS: We prospectively collected data regarding emergency department presentations, inpatient neurology consultations, and neurology outpatient referrals for patients with headache between 13th January and 8th March 2020. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There were 180 emergency department attendances, 50 inpatient consultations, and 76 outpatient referrals with headache. Neurological examinations were often incomplete; neuroimaging was commonly employed. Migraine was the most frequent headache diagnosis at discharge in the emergency department and among inpatients after neurology review. Diagnostic uncertainty was identified-33% of patients left the emergency department with no diagnosis, and "unknown/unspecified headache" was recorded on 49% of outpatient referrals and 30% of inpatient consult requests. Medication overuse headache coexisted with migraine in nine patients in the inpatient group. Prophylaxis had been trialed in 56% of patients with migraine referred to outpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Primary headache disorders have a large impact on hospital services. Diagnostic uncertainty is common; neuroimaging is relied upon. Appropriate care pathways, education, and resource allocation should be prioritized.

SIR Flat CAP (Safety In Radiology - Flat-Packed Compact Airborne Precaution): A Low-Cost, Portable, Negative-Pressure Isolation Barrier Shield for Protecting Frontline Healthcare Workers.

Introduction Multiple barrier shields have been described since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of these are bulky and designed for use in the main anesthetic or radiology departments. We developed a portable, negative-pressure barrier shield designed specifically for portable ultrasound examinations. A novel supine cough generation model was developed together with a reverse qualitative fit test to simulate real-world aerosol droplet generation and dispersion for evaluating the effectiveness of the barrier shield. We report the technical specifications of this design, named "SIR Flat CAP" from Safety In Radiology - Flat-packed Compact Airborne Precaution, as well as its performance in reducing the spread of droplets and aerosols.  Methods The barrier shield was constructed using 1 mm acrylic panels, clear packing tape, foam double-sided tape, and surgical drapes. Negative pressure was provided via hospital wall suction. A supine cough generation model was developed to simulate cough droplet dispersal. A reverse qualitative fit test was used to assess for airborne transmission of microdroplets. Results The supine cough generation model was able to replicate similar results to previously reported supine human cough generation dispersion. The use of the barrier shield with negative-pressure suction prevented the escape of visible droplets, and no airborne microdroplets were detected by reverse qualitative fit testing from the containment area. Conclusions The barrier shield significantly reduces the escape of visible and airborne droplets from the containment area, providing an additional layer of protection to front-line sonographers.

Singapore radiographers' perceptions and expectations of artificial intelligence - A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: With the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging, radiographers are likely to be at the forefront of this technological advancement. Studies have therefore been conducted recently to understand radiographers' opinions on AI adoption. This study extends that work by using a qualitative approach to further explore radiographers' knowledge, perceptions, and expectations of AI. METHOD: Six online focus groups were conducted with 22 radiographers from the three public healthcare clusters in Singapore. They were purposively sampled, and participants were recruited from a broad demographic background with varying years of working experience and designations. The focus group sessions were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was performed on their responses. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated limited knowledge of AI. Their perceptions of AI were mixed, recognising its benefits in increasing efficiency and improving patient care, but also aware of its limitations in accuracy and bias. On how patients may perceive AI, participants felt that patients would accept AI if they felt it improves their care but may reject it once they lose trust in it. Expectations wise, participants envisioned several applications in pre-, peri­, and post-procedural workflows including order vetting, patient positioning, language translation, and artefact removal. On radiographers' role and career opportunities, some participants see an opportunity for radiographers to specialise in AI, becoming involved in algorithm development and its clinical implementation. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that widespread implementation of AI would require limited knowledge amongst radiographers and current AI limitations to be addressed. While radiographers are positively anticipating the integration of AI into their practices, they should also become actively involved in the development of AI tools such that those they envisioned. This would help align optimal use of AI tools and radiographer role changes. Patients' acceptance and reactions to AI also warrant further research.

Operational Strategies to Prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Spread in Radiology: Experience From a Singapore Radiology Department After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection spreads globally, the demand for chest imaging will inevitably rise with an accompanying increase in risk of disease transmission to frontline radiology staff. Radiology departments should implement strict infection control measures and robust operational plans to minimize disease transmission and mitigate potential impact of possible staff infection. In this article, the authors share several operational guidelines and strategies implemented in our practice to reduce spread of COVID-19 and maintain clinical and educational needs of a teaching hospital.

Patient and radiographer assessment of slump sitting flexion compared to conventional standing forward bending flexion.

BACKGROUND: A comparative survey from patients and radiographers of the new slump sitting flexion posture and the conventional standing forward bending posture. This study was performed to compare the technical and logistical aspects of the slump sitting versus the forward bending posture. Slump sitting flexes the lumbar spine more than the forward bending and increases the diagnosis rate of sagittal spinal instability up to 40% depending on the diagnostic criteria used. This should not come at the expense of patient safety and comfort nor burden the radiographers. METHODS: Sixty patients were recruited from a single tertiary spine centre. Patients were block randomised into two groups with either the forward bending or the slump sitting being performed first. Feedback was obtained through self-administered questionnaires from patients regarding perceived safety, convenience and comfort, plus from radiographers regarding the imaging process, proxy measures of radiographer ability and scan difficulty. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the baseline characteristics in both groups. Majority (63%) of patients preferred slump sitting and felt that forward bending caused pain (P=0.025). Overall, slump sitting was equivalent in comfort, perceived safety and ease to forward bending. Despite requiring more logistics (P=0.031), more effort to set up (P=0.002) and explain (P=0.012), the majority of radiographers (83%) preferred slump sitting. This method was felt to be less dangerous (P=0.015) and easier to maintain (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the superiority of slump sitting in allowing more lumbar flexion compared to the forward bending comes with patient safety or comfort. The technical demands of the learning curve can be offset with training. As such, slump sitting flexion views should be adopted as the standardized method for assessing spinal instability.

Slump sitting X-ray of the lumbar spine is superior to the conventional flexion view in assessing lumbar spine instability.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Flexion radiographs have been used to identify cases of spinal instability. However, current methods are not standardized and are not sufficiently sensitive or specific to identify instability. PURPOSE: This study aimed to introduce a new slump sitting method for performing lumbar spine flexion radiographs and comparison of the angular range of motions (ROMs) and displacements between the conventional method and this new method. STUDY DESIGN: This study used is a prospective study on radiological evaluation of the lumbar spine flexion ROMs and displacements using dynamic radiographs. PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty patients were recruited from a single spine tertiary center. OUTCOME MEASURE: Angular and displacement measurements of lumbar spine flexion were carried out. METHOD: Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: those who did the new method first, followed by the conventional method versus those who did the conventional method first, followed by the new method. A comparison of the angular and displacement measurements of lumbar spine flexion between the conventional method and the new method was performed and tested for superiority and non-inferiority. RESULTS: The measurements of global lumbar angular ROM were, on average, 17.3° larger (p<.0001) using the new slump sitting method compared with the conventional method. They were most significant at the levels of L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 (p<.0001, p<.0001 and p=.001, respectively). There was no significant difference between both methods when measuring lumbar displacements (p=.814). CONCLUSION: The new method of slump sitting dynamic radiograph was shown to be superior to the conventional method in measuring the angular ROM and non-inferior to the conventional method in the measurement of displacement.

Lumbar Spine Alignment in Six Common Postures: An ROM Analysis With Implications for Deformity Correction.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To compare lumbar spine alignment in six common postures, and estimate loss in range of motion (ROM) relative to standing. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ideal position for fusion of lumbar spine remains unknown. Although surgical fusion is necessary for deformity correction and symptom relief, the final position in which the vertebrae are immobilized should provide maximum residual function. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from 70 patients with low back pain recruited over a year. All subjects had x-rays performed in slump sitting, forward bending, supine, half squatting, standing, and backward bending postures. ROM quantified in terms of sagittal global and segmental Cobb angles was measured from L1 to S1. Loss of ROM relative to standing was calculated for each posture. Analysis of variance and unpaired t tests were used to identify differences in alignment between postures. RESULTS: Slump sitting gives the greatest lumbar flexion followed by forward bending, and supine postures (P < 0.001). Backward bending produces greater lumbar extension than standing (P = 0.035). Half-squatting and standing postures were not significantly different (P = 0.938). For all postures, L4-5 and L5-S1 segments remained in lordosis, with L4-5 having greater ROM than L5-S1. L1-2 turns kyphotic in lying supine, L2-3 at forward bending, and L3-4 at slump sitting in the form of a "kyphosing cascade." Should the entire lumbar spine be fused in standing position from L1-S1, there would likely be a mean loss of 47.6° of lumbar flexion and 5.9° of lumbar extension. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates the extent of flexibility required of the lumbar spine in assuming various postures. It also enables comparison of the differences in degree of motion occurring in the lumbar spine, both across postures and across segments. Significant loss in ROM, particularly flexion, is anticipated with fusion modeled after the lordotic standing lumbar spine. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

T9 versus T10 as the upper instrumented vertebra for correction of adult deformity-rationale and recommendations.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Adult spinal deformity correction sometimes involves long posterior pedicle screw constructs extending from the lumbosacral spine to the thoracic vertebra. As fusion obliterates motion and places supraphysiological stress on adjacent spinal segments, it is crucial to ascertain the ideal upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) to minimize risk of proximal junctional failure (PJF). The T10 vertebra is often chosen to allow bridging of the thoracolumbar junction into the immobile thoracic vertebrae on the basis that it is the lowest immobile thoracic vertebra strut by the rib cage. PURPOSE: This study aimed to characterize the range of motion (ROM) of each vertebral segment from T7 to S1 to determine if T10 is truly the lowest immobile thoracic vertebra. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a prospective, comparative study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Seventy-nine adults (mean age of 45.4 years) presenting with low back pain or lower limb radiculopathy or both, without previous spinal intervention, metastases, fractures, infection, or congenital deformities of the spine, were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: A ROM >5° across two vertebral segments as determined by the Cobb method from radiographs. METHODS: Lumbar flexion-extension and neutral erect radiographs were obtained in randomized order using a slot scanner. Segmental ROM was measured from T7-T8 to L5-S1 and analyzed for significant differences using t tests. Age, gender, radiographical indices such as standard spinopelvic parameters, sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C7-T12 SVA, T1 slope, thoracic kyphosis (TK), and lumbar lordosis (LL) were studied via multivariate analysis to identify predictive factors for >5° change in ROM at the various segmental levels. There were no sources of funding and no conflicts of interest associated with this study. RESULTS: In the thoracolumbar spine, significant decreases in ROM when compared with the adjacent caudad segment occurs up to T9-T10, with mean total ROM of 1.98±1.47° (p<.001) seen in T9-T10, 2.19±1.67° (p<.001) in T10-T11, and 3.92±3.21°(p<.001) in T11-T12. The total ROM of T8-T9 (2.53±1.79°) was not significantly different from that of T9-T10 (p=.261). At the thoracolumbar junction, absence of scoliosis (OR 11.37, p=.020), high pelvic incidence (OR 1.14, p=.046), and low T1 slope (OR 1.45, p=.030) were predictive of ROM >5°. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM decreases as it approaches the thoracolumbar junction. T10 is indeed the lowest immobile thoracic vertebra strut by the rib cage, and the last significant decrease in ROM is observed at T9-T10, in relation to T10-T11. However, because this also implies that a UIV of T10 would mean there is only one level of fixation above the relatively mobile segment, while respecting other factors that influence UIV selection, we propose the T9 vertebra as a more ideal UIV to fulfill the biomechanical concept of bridge fixation. However, this decision should still be taken on a case-by-case basis.