• Injury · Nov 2017

    Comparative Study

    Differences between orthopaedic evaluation and radiological reports of conventional radiographs in patients with minor trauma admitted to the emergency department.

    • Michele Catapano, Domenico Albano, Grazia Pozzi, Riccardo Accetta, Sergio Memoria, Fabrizio Pregliasco, Carmelo Messina, and Luca Maria Sconfienza.
    • Scuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122 Milano, Italy.
    • Injury. 2017 Nov 1; 48 (11): 2451-2456.

    IntroductionDuring night and on weekends, in our emergency department there is no radiologist on duty or on call: thus, X-ray examinations (XR) are evaluated by the orthopaedic surgeon on duty and reported the following morning/monday by radiologists. The aim of our study was to examine the discrepancy rate between orthopaedists and radiologists in the interpretation of imaging examinations performed on patients in our tertiary level orthopaedic institution and the consequences of delayed diagnosis in terms of patient management and therapeutic strategy.Materials And MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all cases of discrepancy between orthopaedists and radiologists, which were categorized according to anatomical location of injury, initial diagnosis and treatment, change in diagnosis and treatment. We used the Chi square test to compare the frequencies of discrepancies between patients ≤14 and >14years of age.ResultsFrom January to December 2016, 19,512 patients admitted to our emergency department performed at least an imaging examination; among these patients, 13,561 underwent XR in absence of an attending radiologist. A discrepant diagnosis was found in 337/13,561 (2.5%; 184 males; mean age: 36.7±23.7, range 2-95); 151/337 (45%) discrepancies were encountered in the lower limbs, with ankle being the most common site of misdiagnosis (64/151), and 103/337 (30%) in the upper limbs, with the elbow being the most frequent site in this district (35/103). We found 293/337 false negatives (87%) and 44/337 false positives (13%), with 134 and 13 patients needing treatment change, respectively. We found 85/337 discrepancies (25%) in patients ≤14 years of age, and 252/337 (75%) in those >14years. The distribution of discrepancies per anatomic district was significantly different (P<0.001) in these two groups of patients.ConclusionsA low rate of discrepancy between orthopaedists and radiologists in evaluating images of patients admitted to our emergency department was found, although treatment change occurred in about half of cases. A thorough and accurate clinical evaluation is crucial to provide a correct treatment and prognosis.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.