OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate whether radiologist-produced imaging reports containing the terms mastoiditis or mastoid opacification clinically correlate with physical examination findings of mastoiditis. Additionally, to investigate whether and how often otolaryngology was unnecessarily consulted and inappropriate antibiotic therapy was initiated. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review within a large community hospital setting. METHODS: A retrospective review of 160 patients who had imaging tests performed for nonotolaryngology indications from January 2011 to March 2017 at our facility. Indications, patient demographics, otolaryngology consultations, and new antibiotics started were recorded. Physical examinations were documented. RESULTS: Physical examination revealed that only 14 of 160 patients (8.8%) had clinical evidence of otologic disease. However, of the 160 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 18 (11.3%) received an otolaryngology consultation, and 18 (11.3%) had antibiotics started. Eleven of the 18 patients in each group (61.1%) had a normal physical examination, two (11.1%) had serous otitis media, one (5.6%) had chronic otitis media, and four (22.2%) had acute otitis media. No patients were found to have clinical mastoiditis. χ2 analysis revealed no significance in the radiologic diagnosis of mastoiditis versus mastoid opacification in relation to physicians requesting otolaryngology consultations (P = .241) or starting patients on antibiotics (P = .951). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the prevalence of incidental but clinically insignificant opacification of the mastoid cavity. We believe that nonotolaryngology physicians are, overall, competent to correlate such radiologic findings clinically and to prevent unnecessary consultations and inappropriate treatment, which add significant costs to our overstretched healthcare system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:852-857, 2019.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate whether radiologist-produced imaging reports containing the terms mastoiditis or mastoid opacification clinically correlate with physical examination findings of mastoiditis. Additionally, to investigate whether and how often otolaryngology was unnecessarily consulted and inappropriate antibiotic therapy was initiated. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review within a large community hospital setting. METHODS: A retrospective review of 160 patients who had imaging tests performed for nonotolaryngology indications from January 2011 to March 2017 at our facility. Indications, patient demographics, otolaryngology consultations, and new antibiotics started were recorded. Physical examinations were documented. RESULTS: Physical examination revealed that only 14 of 160 patients (8.8%) had clinical evidence of otologic disease. However, of the 160 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 18 (11.3%) received an otolaryngology consultation, and 18 (11.3%) had antibiotics started. Eleven of the 18 patients in each group (61.1%) had a normal physical examination, two (11.1%) had serous otitis media, one (5.6%) had chronic otitis media, and four (22.2%) had acute otitis media. No patients were found to have clinical mastoiditis. χ2 analysis revealed no significance in the radiologic diagnosis of mastoiditis versus mastoid opacification in relation to physicians requesting otolaryngology consultations (P = .241) or starting patients on antibiotics (P = .951). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the prevalence of incidental but clinically insignificant opacification of the mastoid cavity. We believe that nonotolaryngology physicians are, overall, competent to correlate such radiologic findings clinically and to prevent unnecessary consultations and inappropriate treatment, which add significant costs to our overstretched healthcare system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:852-857, 2019.