腹部计算机断层扫描评分系统和经验丰富的放射科医生对小肠和肠系膜损伤的放射诊断。

IF 1.7 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Emergency Radiology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1007/s10140-023-02197-8
Devin M O'Toole, Nicole V Warrington, Nicholas G Matthees, Kristina M Kupanoff, James N Bogert, Michael D Jones, Hahn Soe-Lin, Dih-Dih Huang, Jordan A Weinberg
{"title":"腹部计算机断层扫描评分系统和经验丰富的放射科医生对小肠和肠系膜损伤的放射诊断。","authors":"Devin M O'Toole, Nicole V Warrington, Nicholas G Matthees, Kristina M Kupanoff, James N Bogert, Michael D Jones, Hahn Soe-Lin, Dih-Dih Huang, Jordan A Weinberg","doi":"10.1007/s10140-023-02197-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Blunt bowel and/or mesenteric injury requiring surgery presents a diagnostic challenge. Although computed tomography (CT) imaging is standard following blunt trauma, findings can be nonspecific. Most studies have focused on the diagnostic value of CT findings in identifying significant bowel and/or mesenteric injury (sBMI). Some studies have described scoring systems to assist with diagnosis. Little attention, has been given to radiologist interpretation of CT scans. This study compared the discriminative ability of scoring systems (BIPS and RAPTOR) with radiologist interpretation in identifying sBMI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective chart review of trauma patients with suspected sBMI. CT images were reviewed in a blinded fashion to calculate BIPS and RAPTOR scores. Sensitivity and specificity were compared between BIPS, RAPTOR, and the admission CT report with respect to identifying sBMI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred sixty-two patients were identified, 72 (44%) underwent laparotomy and 43 (26.5%) had sBMI. Sensitivity and specificity were: BIPS 49% and 87%, AUC 0.75 (0.67-0.81), P < 0.001; RAPTOR 46% and 82%, AUC 0.72 (0.64-0.79), P < 0.001; radiologist impression 81% and 71%, AUC 0.82(0.75-0.87), P < 0.001. The discriminative ability of the radiologist impression was higher than RAPTOR (P = 0.04) but not BIPS (P = 0.13). There was not a difference between RAPTOR vs. BIPS (P = 0.55).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radiologist interpretation of the admission CT scan was discriminative of sBMI. Although surgical vigilance, including evaluation of the CT images and patient, remains fundamental to early diagnosis, the radiologist's impression of the CT scan can be used in clinical practice to simplify the approach to patients with abdominal trauma.</p>","PeriodicalId":11623,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"193-201"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10995023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abdominal computed tomography scoring systems and experienced radiologists in the radiological diagnosis of small bowel and mesenteric injury.\",\"authors\":\"Devin M O'Toole, Nicole V Warrington, Nicholas G Matthees, Kristina M Kupanoff, James N Bogert, Michael D Jones, Hahn Soe-Lin, Dih-Dih Huang, Jordan A Weinberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10140-023-02197-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Blunt bowel and/or mesenteric injury requiring surgery presents a diagnostic challenge. Although computed tomography (CT) imaging is standard following blunt trauma, findings can be nonspecific. Most studies have focused on the diagnostic value of CT findings in identifying significant bowel and/or mesenteric injury (sBMI). Some studies have described scoring systems to assist with diagnosis. Little attention, has been given to radiologist interpretation of CT scans. This study compared the discriminative ability of scoring systems (BIPS and RAPTOR) with radiologist interpretation in identifying sBMI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective chart review of trauma patients with suspected sBMI. CT images were reviewed in a blinded fashion to calculate BIPS and RAPTOR scores. Sensitivity and specificity were compared between BIPS, RAPTOR, and the admission CT report with respect to identifying sBMI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred sixty-two patients were identified, 72 (44%) underwent laparotomy and 43 (26.5%) had sBMI. Sensitivity and specificity were: BIPS 49% and 87%, AUC 0.75 (0.67-0.81), P < 0.001; RAPTOR 46% and 82%, AUC 0.72 (0.64-0.79), P < 0.001; radiologist impression 81% and 71%, AUC 0.82(0.75-0.87), P < 0.001. The discriminative ability of the radiologist impression was higher than RAPTOR (P = 0.04) but not BIPS (P = 0.13). There was not a difference between RAPTOR vs. BIPS (P = 0.55).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radiologist interpretation of the admission CT scan was discriminative of sBMI. Although surgical vigilance, including evaluation of the CT images and patient, remains fundamental to early diagnosis, the radiologist's impression of the CT scan can be used in clinical practice to simplify the approach to patients with abdominal trauma.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11623,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"193-201\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10995023/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-023-02197-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-023-02197-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:需要进行手术的钝性肠道和/或肠系膜损伤给诊断带来了挑战。尽管计算机断层扫描(CT)成像是钝性创伤后的标准成像,但其结果可能并不具有特异性。大多数研究都集中在 CT 检查结果对确定严重肠道和/或肠系膜损伤(sBMI)的诊断价值上。一些研究描述了协助诊断的评分系统。但很少有人关注放射科医生对 CT 扫描的判读。本研究比较了评分系统(BIPS 和 RAPTOR)与放射科医师判读在识别 sBMI 方面的鉴别能力:我们对疑似 sBMI 的创伤患者进行了回顾性病历审查。方法: 我们对疑似 SBMI 的创伤患者进行了回顾性病历审查,并以盲法审查 CT 图像,计算 BIPS 和 RAPTOR 分数。比较了 BIPS、RAPTOR 和入院 CT 报告在识别 sBMI 方面的敏感性和特异性:共确定了 162 名患者,其中 72 人(44%)接受了开腹手术,43 人(26.5%)患有 sBMI。灵敏度和特异性分别为BIPS 49% 和 87%,AUC 0.75 (0.67-0.81),P <0.001;RAPTOR 46% 和 82%,AUC 0.72 (0.64-0.79),P <0.001;放射医师印象 81% 和 71%,AUC 0.82(0.75-0.87),P <0.001。放射科医生印象的判别能力高于 RAPTOR(P = 0.04),但低于 BIPS(P = 0.13)。RAPTOR与BIPS之间没有差异(P = 0.55):结论:放射科医生对入院 CT 扫描的判读对 sBMI 具有鉴别作用。结论:放射科医生对入院 CT 扫描的判读对 sBMI 有鉴别作用。虽然外科手术的警惕性(包括对 CT 图像和患者的评估)仍是早期诊断的基础,但放射科医生对 CT 扫描的印象可用于临床实践,以简化腹部创伤患者的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Abdominal computed tomography scoring systems and experienced radiologists in the radiological diagnosis of small bowel and mesenteric injury.

Purpose: Blunt bowel and/or mesenteric injury requiring surgery presents a diagnostic challenge. Although computed tomography (CT) imaging is standard following blunt trauma, findings can be nonspecific. Most studies have focused on the diagnostic value of CT findings in identifying significant bowel and/or mesenteric injury (sBMI). Some studies have described scoring systems to assist with diagnosis. Little attention, has been given to radiologist interpretation of CT scans. This study compared the discriminative ability of scoring systems (BIPS and RAPTOR) with radiologist interpretation in identifying sBMI.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of trauma patients with suspected sBMI. CT images were reviewed in a blinded fashion to calculate BIPS and RAPTOR scores. Sensitivity and specificity were compared between BIPS, RAPTOR, and the admission CT report with respect to identifying sBMI.

Results: One hundred sixty-two patients were identified, 72 (44%) underwent laparotomy and 43 (26.5%) had sBMI. Sensitivity and specificity were: BIPS 49% and 87%, AUC 0.75 (0.67-0.81), P < 0.001; RAPTOR 46% and 82%, AUC 0.72 (0.64-0.79), P < 0.001; radiologist impression 81% and 71%, AUC 0.82(0.75-0.87), P < 0.001. The discriminative ability of the radiologist impression was higher than RAPTOR (P = 0.04) but not BIPS (P = 0.13). There was not a difference between RAPTOR vs. BIPS (P = 0.55).

Conclusion: Radiologist interpretation of the admission CT scan was discriminative of sBMI. Although surgical vigilance, including evaluation of the CT images and patient, remains fundamental to early diagnosis, the radiologist's impression of the CT scan can be used in clinical practice to simplify the approach to patients with abdominal trauma.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Radiology
Emergency Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
98
期刊介绍: To advance and improve the radiologic aspects of emergency careTo establish Emergency Radiology as an area of special interest in the field of diagnostic imagingTo improve methods of education in Emergency RadiologyTo provide, through formal meetings, a mechanism for presentation of scientific papers on various aspects of Emergency Radiology and continuing educationTo promote research in Emergency Radiology by clinical and basic science investigators, including residents and other traineesTo act as the resource body on Emergency Radiology for those interested in emergency patient care Members of the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) receive the Emergency Radiology journal as a benefit of membership!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信