Darel E. Heitkamp

Multidetector-row helical CT enteroclysis.

Currently, CT-E is not recommended as the first-line examination in patients when mucosal detail is required. Double-contrast barium air enteroclysis has advantages in demonstrating small mucosal abnormalities. The authors find CT-E of value in the work-up of patients with symptoms of intermittent small bowel obstruction, particularly those with a history of prior abdominal surgery; in the further work-up of selected patients with high-grade obstruction in whom general surgeons prefer initial conservative management (immediate postoperative small bowel obstruction, patients with history of prior abdominal surgery for malignant tumor, history of radiation treatment, and possible internal extraintestinal fistulae); in looking for complications of small bowel Crohns disease; and in the patient with unexplained anemia or gastrointestinal bleeding. In a series of patients who had both abdominal CT and barium enteroclysis done, each examination provided unique and complimentary diagnostic information. Because CT-E combines the advantages of both methods of examination, is it the optimum imaging work-up in the investigation of small bowel disease? Further research and clinical experience will define the precise role of CT-E in the investigation of small bowel disease. Experience with this method of examination is limited to a few institutions, performed by investigators with interest in small bowel diseases. The addition of cross-sectional display and multiplanar reformatting made possible by multidetector-row helical CT to enteral volume change and the use of multifunctional nasointestinal catheters make CT-E an important tool in the investigation of small bowel disease. Experience has shown the increased reliability of any method of examining the small bowel that challenges intestinal wall distensibility by fluid enteral volume infusion.

Current concepts in imaging of small bowel obstruction

The diagnosis and treatment of small bowel obstruction continue to evolve. The imaging approach in the work-up of patients with known or suspected small bowel obstruction and the timing of surgical intervention in this disease have undergone considerable changes over the past two decades. This article examines the current concepts related to the use of imaging technology in the diagnosis and management of patients with small bowel obstruction. The meaning of frequently used but poorly defined terms in describing intestinal obstruction is clarified and illustrated.

Technical refinements in enteroclysis

As the primary method of investigating the small bowel, enteroclysis remains a technique in evolution. Technical refinements have made the examination faster to perform, better tolerated by patients, and easier to interpret. More recently, its essential principle of volume challenge has been combined with the tremendous advantage of CT cross-sectional imaging with multiplanar reformatting to give rise to the exciting new techniques of CT enteroclysis and MR enteroclysis (see separate reviews in this issue). Through improvements in methodology and advancements in technology, the future of enteroclysis looks bright indeed.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® screening for pulmonary metastases.

Screening for pulmonary metastatic disease is an important step for staging a patient with a known or recently discovered malignancy. Here we present our recommendations for screening for metastatic disease based on recommendations from the literature and experiences of pulmonary radiologists. In short, chest computed tomographic (CT) screening is the most appropriate tool for evaluation of pulmonary metastasis in the majority of cases. Chest computed tomographic screening is also recommended for follow-up and to determine response to therapy. Other modalities such as chest radiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and scintigraphy will also be discussed. Please note that this study is a summary of the complete version of this topic, which is available on the ACR website at www.acr.org. Practitioners are encouraged to refer to the complete version.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Blunt Chest Trauma

Imaging is paramount in the setting of blunt trauma and is now the standard of care at any trauma center. Although anteroposterior radiography has inherent limitations, the ability to acquire a radiograph in the trauma bay with little interruption in clinical survey, monitoring, and treatment, as well as radiographys accepted role in screening for traumatic aortic injury, supports the routine use of chest radiography. Chest CT or CT angiography is the gold-standard routine imaging modality for detecting thoracic injuries caused by blunt trauma. There is disagreement on whether routine chest CT is necessary in all patients with histories of blunt trauma. Ultimately, the frequency and timing of CT chest imaging should be site specific and should depend on the local resources of the trauma center as well as patient status. Ultrasound may be beneficial in the detection of pneumothorax, hemothorax, and pericardial hemorrhage; transesophageal echocardiography is a first-line imaging tool in the setting of suspected cardiac injury. In the blunt trauma setting, MRI and nuclear medicine likely play no role in the acute setting, although these modalities may be helpful as problem-solving tools after initial assessment. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR appropriateness criteria routine chest radiographs in intensive care unit patients.

Daily routine chest radiographs in the intensive care unit (ICU) have been a tradition for many years. Anecdotal reports of misplacement of life support items, acute lung processes, and extra pulmonary air collections in a small number of patients served as a justification for routine chest radiographs in the ICU. Having analyzed this practice, the ACR Appropriateness Criteria Expert Panel on Thoracic Imaging has made the following recommendations: • When monitoring a stable patient or a patient on mechanical ventilation in the ICU, a portable chest radiograph is appropriate for clinical indications only. • It is appropriate to obtain a chest radiograph after placement of an endotracheal tube, central venous line, Swan-Ganz catheter, nasogastric tube, feeding tube, or chest tube. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. The strongest data contributing to these recommendations were derived from a meta-analysis of 8 trials comprising 7,078 ICU patients by Oba and Zaza [1].

The Interventional Radiology/Diagnostic Radiology Certificate: Asking the Hard Questions

There does come a point at which further differentiation undermines a field’s coherence and begins to generate costs of such high magnitude that they outweigh the benefits.

ACR appropriateness Criteria ® rib

Rib fracture is the most common thoracic injury, present in 10% of all traumatic injuries and almost 40% of patients who sustain severe nonpenetrating trauma. Although rib fractures can produce significant morbidity, the diagnosis of associated complications (such as pneumothorax, hemothorax, pulmonary contusion, atelectasis, flail chest, cardiovascular injury, and injuries to solid and hollow abdominal organs) may have a more significant clinical impact. When isolated, rib fractures have a relatively low morbidity and mortality, and failure to detect isolated rib fractures does not necessarily alter patient management or outcome in uncomplicated cases. A standard posteroanterior chest radiograph should be the initial, and often the only, imaging test required in patients with suspected rib fracture after minor trauma. Detailed radiographs of the ribs rarely add additional information that would change treatment, and, although other imaging tests (eg, computed tomography, bone scan) have increased sensitivity for detection of rib fractures, there are little data to support their use. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review process include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Developing tomorrow's academic radiologists: A 3-month residency elective in education

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The shortage of academic radiologists reveals an urgent need to attract more residents into academic careers. A great deal of attention has been focused on research, but few programmatic initiatives have addressed the development of the next generation of radiology educators. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a new 3-month residency elective in education. MATERIALS AND METHODS A large academic radiology department developed a 3-month education elective, during which two residents would be relieved of clinical duties and focus full-time on tasks related to their development as educators, including the completion of a major educational project. RESULTS Two residents, in their 3rd year and 4th year of residency, respectively, proposed to collaborate in developing a Web-delivered tutorial for the departments senior medical student clerkship. At the end of 3 months, their radiology tutorial was introduced. In its 1st month, it received a mean rating of 4.3 on a five-point scale. The residents stated that the elective had enabled them to develop important skills in instructional technology, put into practice their enhanced understanding of learning psychology, and substantially strengthened their overall commitment to academic careers. CONCLUSION It is vital that residency programs focus on developing the next generation of radiology educators. This ongoing education elective represents one successful model.

What Program Directors Think III: Results of the 2014/2015 Annual Surveys of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR).

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The Association of Program Directors in Radiology regularly surveys its members regarding issues of importance to support radiology residency programs and their directors. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is an observational cross-sectional study using two Web-based surveys posed to the Association of Program Directors in Radiology membership in the fall of 2014 (49 items) and the spring of 2015 (46 items) on the subjects of importance to the members, including the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education Milestones, the Non-Interpretative Skills Curriculum, the American Board of Radiology Core Examination, the effect of the new resident testing and program accreditation paradigms on training outcomes, the 2015 Residency Match, the Interventional Radiology/Diagnostic Radiology (IR/DR) Residency, and Program Director (PD)/Program Coordinator resources. RESULTS Responses were collected electronically, results were tallied using SurveyMonkey software, and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments. Findings were reported during the 63rd annual meeting of the Association of University Radiologists. The maximal response rate was 33% in the fall of 2014 and 36% in the spring of 2015. CONCLUSIONS PDs believed that the radiology Milestones, now largely implemented, did not affect overall resident evaluation, was not reflective of resident experience, and actually made evaluation of residents more difficult. PDs also felt that although the American Board of Radiology oral examination had been a better test for clinical practice preparedness, their new residents knew at least as much as before. There was little evidence of recall reemergence. The radiology training community saw a drop in residency applicant quality as demonstrated by the United States Medical Licensing Examination scores and clinical rotation grades. Because the new IR/DR Residency positions were to be funded at the expense of the traditional DR positions, the majority of PDs expected a negative effect of the impending IR/DR match on their DR recruitment. PDs were in favor of a unified clinical radiology curriculum similar to the Radiological Society of North America online physics modules.