OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine portable abdominal CT image quality and clinical content in a consecutive series of scans obtained in ICUs at a single center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All helical portable abdominal CT scans obtained between June 1999 and December 2000 were reviewed by two observers. Image quality was assessed for feature detection and overall quality compared with the patients' contemporaneous stationary CT scans. Hospital records were used to determine patient demographics, scanning indications, and clinical impact and to verify portable CT findings when possible. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two helical portable CT scans (47 contrast-enhanced) and 41 contemporaneous stationary CT scans in 107 patients were included. IV contrast material improved portable CT scan quality, but quality scores for portable CT scans were consistently lower than those for stationary CT scans, both with and without contrast material. Thirty-three conditions suspected before scanning were supported by findings on portable CT scans, which detected evidence of infection in 18 and hemorrhage in 16 cases and motivated seven laparotomies and six percutaneous drainage procedures. Thirty-three portable CT scans (27%) contributed to a change in patient treatment. Results of surgery or autopsy confirmed portable CT findings in 12 of 17 cases. CONCLUSION: Although image quality is inferior to conventional stationary CT, portable abdominal CT provides important diagnostic information without requiring patient transport outside the ICU. Radiologists should avoid overconfident interpretation of portable CT scans.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine portable abdominal CT image quality and clinical content in a consecutive series of scans obtained in ICUs at a single center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All helical portable abdominal CT scans obtained between June 1999 and December 2000 were reviewed by two observers. Image quality was assessed for feature detection and overall quality compared with the patients' contemporaneous stationary CT scans. Hospital records were used to determine patient demographics, scanning indications, and clinical impact and to verify portable CT findings when possible. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two helical portable CT scans (47 contrast-enhanced) and 41 contemporaneous stationary CT scans in 107 patients were included. IV contrast material improved portable CT scan quality, but quality scores for portable CT scans were consistently lower than those for stationary CT scans, both with and without contrast material. Thirty-three conditions suspected before scanning were supported by findings on portable CT scans, which detected evidence of infection in 18 and hemorrhage in 16 cases and motivated seven laparotomies and six percutaneous drainage procedures. Thirty-three portable CT scans (27%) contributed to a change in patient treatment. Results of surgery or autopsy confirmed portable CT findings in 12 of 17 cases. CONCLUSION: Although image quality is inferior to conventional stationary CT, portable abdominal CT provides important diagnostic information without requiring patient transport outside the ICU. Radiologists should avoid overconfident interpretation of portable CT scans.
Authors: David D B Bates; Andriy Vintonyak; Rennie Mohabir; Usman Mahmood; Pat Soto; Jeffrey S Groeger; Michelle S Ginsberg; Marc J Gollub Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2020-06-09