Radiologic Findings in Intimate Partner Violence.

Purpose To assess the radiologic findings associated with intimate partner violence (IPV). Materials and Methods Electronic medical records of 185 patients referred to the IPV support program from the emergency department (ED) between January 2015 and October 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and compared with an age- and sex-matched control group of 555 subjects (1:3 ratio of IPV victims to control subjects) who presented to the ED. Reports of all imaging studies performed within 5 years prior to the index ED visit were reviewed. Results The majority of patients who experienced IPV (mean age, 34.2 years ± 12.2 [standard deviation]) were female (178 of 185 [96.2%]) and were largely African American (69 of 185 [37.3%]). Demographic and clinical variables independently associated with IPV were race (odds ratio [OR] range, 3.2-5.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 12.7), psychiatric comorbidities (OR, 5.4; 95% CI: 3.4, 8.8), and homelessness (OR, 13.0; 95% CI: 5.4, 31.2). IPV victims underwent more imaging studies in the preceding 5 years (median, four studies) than did control subjects (median, one study). Obstetric-gynecologic findings (OR, 4.4; 95% CI: 2.1, 9.6) and acute fractures (OR, 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.3) seen on images were independently associated with IPV. The addition of imaging findings to demographic and clinical variables increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the multivariate model to detect IPV (0.87 vs 0.86, P < .01), and the cross-validated multivariate model had an AUC of 0.85. Acute fractures involved the face or skull (range, P < .01 to P = .05), and chronic fractures affected the extremities and nasal bone (P < .01 and P = .05, respectively) more frequently in the IPV group than in the control group. Conclusion Intimate partner violence victims undergo more imaging studies and have a higher frequency of potential violence-related imaging findings when compared with age- and sex-matched control subjects. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Flores and Narayan in this issue.

Injuries to the Rigid Spine: What the Spine Surgeon Wants to Know.

The biomechanical stability of the spine is altered in patients with a rigid spine, rendering it vulnerable to fracture even from relatively minor impact. The rigid spine entities are ankylosing spondylitis (AS), diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis, degenerative spondylosis, and a surgically fused spine. The most common mechanism of injury resulting in fracture is hyperextension, which often leads to unstable injury in patients with a rigid spine per the recent AOSpine classification system. Due to the increased risk of spinal fractures in this population, performing a spine CT is the first step when a patient with a rigid spine presents with new back pain or suspected spinal trauma. In addition, there should be a low threshold for performing a non-contrast-enhanced spine MRI in patients with a rigid spine, especially those with AS who may have an occult fracture, epidural hematoma, or spinal cord injury. Unfortunately, owing to insufficient imaging and an unfamiliarity with fracture patterns in the setting of a rigid spine, fracture diagnosis is often delayed, leading to significant morbidity and even death. The radiologist's role is to recognize the imaging features of a rigid spine, identify any fractures at CT and MRI, and fully characterize the extent of injury. Reasons for surgical intervention include neurologic deficit or concern for deterioration, an unstable fracture, or the presence of an epidural hematoma. By understanding the imaging features of various rigid spine conditions and vigilantly examining images for occult fractures, the radiologist can avoid a missed or delayed diagnosis of an injured rigid spine. ©RSNA, 2019.

A simplified classification of proximal femoral fractures improves accuracy, confidence, and inter-reader agreement of hip fracture classification by radiology residents.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the effect of teaching a simplified treatment-based classification of proximal femoral fractures on the accuracy, confidence, and inter-reader agreement of radiology residents. The authors hypothesize that these measures will improve after viewing an educational presentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three radiology residents independently classified 100 operative proximal femoral fractures, both before and after viewing a 45-min educational video describing the simplified classification scheme, with a washout period of at least 12 weeks between sessions. Based on the gold standard established by consensus of two radiologists and an orthopedic trauma surgeon utilizing intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging, operative reports, and pre-procedural imaging, accuracy of classification was calculated for each reader before and after viewing the educational video. Reader confidence was recorded on a 0-10 scale, and inter-reader agreement was calculated with Fleiss's kappa. McNemar's test was used to compare accuracy, a paired t test was used to compare confidence, and the Z-test was used to compare kappa values after bootstrapping to determine the standard error of the mean. RESULTS: The study cohort included 60/100 females, with a mean age of 76.6 years. The pooled classification accuracy was initially 65%, which improved to 80% in the second reading session after viewing the educational video (p < 0.0001). Confidence improved from 6.9 initially to 8.6 (p < 0.0001). Inter-reader agreement improved from a kappa of 0.45 (moderate agreement) to 0.74 (substantial agreement) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A simplified treatment-based classification of proximal femoral fractures is easily taught to radiology residents and resulted in increased accuracy, increased inter-reader agreement, and increased reader confidence.

International pediatric radiology education: who should be trained, and how?

Education is a key component in international outreach. In light of the growing importance of diagnostic imaging in both developed and developing countries, we need to embrace the goals of standardizing training, establishing international standards, and promoting innovations and advances in pediatric radiology internationally. The World Federation of Pediatric Imaging hopes to promote this work through education, improving diagnostic imaging and therapy access to children worldwide.

Spinal trauma in DISH and AS: is MRI essential following the detection of vertebral fractures on CT?

BACKGROUND: Both ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) cause a rigid spine, but through different pathophysiology. Recent data has shown that characteristic fracture patterns may also differ following trauma since the posterior osseous and soft tissue elements are often spared in DISH. CT and MRI are important in diagnosing spine injury, but given the differences between AS and DISH, the utility of obtaining both studies in all patients warrants scrutiny. PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence of posterior element injury on CT and MRI in DISH and AS patients with known vertebral body injury detected on CT; to determine whether MRI demonstrates additional injuries in neurologically intact patients presumed to have isolated vertebral body injuries on CT. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, case-control study. PATIENT SAMPLE: DISH and AS patients presenting after spine trauma between 2007 and 2017. OUTCOME MEASURES: Review of CT and MRI findings at the time of presentation. METHODS: One hundred sixty DISH and 85 AS patients presenting after spine trauma were identified from 2 affiliated academic hospitals serving as level 1 trauma and tertiary referral centers. A diagnosis of DISH or AS was verified by a board-certified emergency radiologist with 3 years of experience. Age, gender, mechanism of injury, fracture type, spine CT and MRI imaging findings, surgical intervention, and neurologic deficit were recorded. The CT and MRI studies were reviewed by the same radiologist for fracture location and type using the AO spine classification. No funding source or conflict of interest was present. RESULTS: Median age was 72 and 79 years old for the AS and DISH groups, respectively. Both were predominantly male (81%) and most presented after a low energy mechanism of injury (74% and 73%). Type C AO spine injuries were seen in 52% of AS patients but only 4% of DISH patients. In patients with known vertebral body injury on CT, additional injury to the posterior elements on CT or MRI in DISH patients was 51% versus 92% in AS patients. However, in patients with an isolated vertebral body fracture on CT and no neurological deficit, MRI identified posterior element injury in only 4/22 (18%) DISH patients compared to 5 of 7 (71%) AS patients. None of the MRI findings in the DISH patients were considered clinically important while all 5 AS patients eventually underwent operative treatment despite having no neurological deficit. Epidural hematoma on MRI was seen in 43% of AS patients as opposed to 5% of DISH patients. CONCLUSION: Based on our small sample size, CT alone may be adequate in DISH patients with isolated vertebral body fractures and no neurologic deficit, but an additional MRI should be considered in the presence of an unclear neurological exam or deficit. MRI should be strongly considered for any AS patient regardless of neurologic status.