PURPOSE: A second opinion is a valuable resource in confirming proper medical diagnosis and treatment. This study evaluates the effectiveness of second-opinion radiology consultations to reassess the cervical spine computed tomography (CT) scans of the trauma patients referred to our hospital. METHODS: Cervical spine CT scans of 301 consecutive adult trauma patients, who were referred to our hospital from outside institutions, were analyzed. The emergency radiologists at our institution completed the over-read reports on the CT images obtained at the outside facilities. A single radiologist compared the outside- and over-read reports and determined the discrepancy of the radiologic reports. RESULTS: Based on the outside reports, 31% of the CT scans had cervical traumatic injury. In 92% of patients, the first-read and the over-read reports had consistent radiologic findings. About 90% of the positive, and 93% of the negative radiologic findings, were reported consistently in the over-read reports. Our analysis showed that the over-read reporting resulted in reassurance of negative findings in 63%; confirmation of positive findings in 29%; clearing a false diagnosis in 3%; and detection of a missed diagnosis in 5%. A rescan was done in 80% of patients with inconsistent and 20% of patients with consistent findings (P < 0.05). The most common missed radiologic findings in the first-reports were transverse and spinous process fractures and the most common misdiagnoses were dens fractures. CONCLUSION: For a service offering second-opinion consultations on cervical spine trauma, review of outside CT studies improves diagnosis and benefits patient care.
PURPOSE: A second opinion is a valuable resource in confirming proper medical diagnosis and treatment. This study evaluates the effectiveness of second-opinion radiology consultations to reassess the cervical spine computed tomography (CT) scans of the traumapatients referred to our hospital. METHODS: Cervical spine CT scans of 301 consecutive adult traumapatients, who were referred to our hospital from outside institutions, were analyzed. The emergency radiologists at our institution completed the over-read reports on the CT images obtained at the outside facilities. A single radiologist compared the outside- and over-read reports and determined the discrepancy of the radiologic reports. RESULTS: Based on the outside reports, 31% of the CT scans had cervical traumatic injury. In 92% of patients, the first-read and the over-read reports had consistent radiologic findings. About 90% of the positive, and 93% of the negative radiologic findings, were reported consistently in the over-read reports. Our analysis showed that the over-read reporting resulted in reassurance of negative findings in 63%; confirmation of positive findings in 29%; clearing a false diagnosis in 3%; and detection of a missed diagnosis in 5%. A rescan was done in 80% of patients with inconsistent and 20% of patients with consistent findings (P < 0.05). The most common missed radiologic findings in the first-reports were transverse and spinous process fractures and the most common misdiagnoses were densfractures. CONCLUSION: For a service offering second-opinion consultations on cervical spine trauma, review of outside CT studies improves diagnosis and benefits patient care.
Authors: Christopher Eakins; Wendy D Ellis; Sumit Pruthi; David P Johnson; Marta Hernanz-Schulman; Chang Yu; J Herman Kan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Johan W M Van Goethem; Menno Maes; Ozkan Ozsarlak; Luc van den Hauwe; Paul M Parizel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-02-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Elizabeth Susan Lustrin; Sabiha Pinar Karakas; A Orlando Ortiz; Jay Cinnamon; Mauricio Castillo; Kirubahara Vaheesan; James H Brown; Alan S Diamond; Karen Black; Sudha Singh Journal: Radiographics Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: D V Cherla; K Bernardi; K J Blair; S S Chua; J P Hasapes; L S Kao; T C Ko; E J Matta; M L Moses; K G Shiralkar; V R Surabhi; V S Tammisetti; C P Viso; M K Liang Journal: Hernia Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Sven Y Vetter; Svenja Schüler; Matthes Hackbusch; Michael Müller; Benedict Swartman; Marc Schnetzke; Paul Alfred Grützner; Jochen Franke Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: K Rao; J M Engelbart; J Yanik; J Hall; S Swenson; B Policeni; J Maley; C Galet; T Granchi; D A Skeete Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 3.825