Douglas R. Kitchin

Microwave ablation of malignant hepatic tumours: Intraperitoneal fluid instillation prevents collateral damage and allows more aggressive case selection

Abstract Purpose: Theaim of this peper was to retrospectively review our experience utilising protective fluid instillation techniques during percutaneous microwave ablation of liver tumours to determine if fluid instillation prevents non-target injuries and allows a more aggressive case selection. Materials and methods: This institute review board-approved, US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, retrospective study reviewed percutaneous microwave ablation of 151 malignant hepatic tumours in 87 patients, comparing cases in which protective fluid instillation was performed with those where no fluid was utilised. In cases utilising hydrodisplacement for bowel protection, a consensus panel evaluated eligibility for potential ablation without hydrodisplacement. Patient age, tumour size, local tumour progression rate, length of follow-up, complications, displacement distance/artificial ascites thickness, and treatment power/time were compared. Results: Fluid administration was utilised during treatment in 29/151 of cases: 10/29 for protection of bowel (8/10 cases not possible without fluid displacement), and 19/29 for body wall/diaphragm protection. Local tumour progression was higher when hydrodisplacement was used to protect bowel tissue; this may be due to lower applied power due to operator caution. Local tumour progression was not increased for artificial ascites. There was no difference in complications between the fluid group and controls. Conclusion: Intraperitoneal fluid administration is a safe and effective method of protecting non-target structures during percutaneous hepatic microwave ablation. While hydrodisplacement for bowel protection allows more aggressive case selection, these cases were associated with higher rates of local tumour progression.

Microwave Ablation of Hepatic Tumors Abutting the Diaphragm Is Safe and Effective

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of clinically significant diaphragmatic injuries and local tumor progression after microwave ablation of hepatic tumors abutting the diaphragm. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective study included 55 peripheral hepatic tumors abutting the diaphragm treated by microwave ablation versus a control group of 15 centrally located tumors. Treated tumors were further subdivided according to the use of artificial ascites (fluid vs no fluid) and whether instilled fluid achieved displacement of the liver surface away from the diaphragm (displaced vs nondisplaced). Measurements of tumor size, distance to the diaphragm, ablation zone size, displacement distance, length of the ablation zone along the liver capsule, diaphragm thickness, diaphragmatic hernia, and local tumor progression were made on pre- and postablation CT and MRI. The electronic medical record was reviewed for patient self-reported pain scores and other symptoms. Data were analyzed by use of the Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS There were no cases of diaphragmatic hernia in peripheral or central tumors. Postablation diaphragm thickness was higher in peripheral hepatic tumors than in control tumors. Peripheral tumors had an overall higher incidence of postprocedure shoulder pain (18% vs 0%) and local tumor progression (5.5% vs 0%) compared with control tumors, but these differences did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.2 and p = 1, respectively). CONCLUSION Our study shows that microwave ablation of peridiaphragmatic hepatic tumors is safe, without incidence of diaphragmatic hernia, and can be performed with a low rate of local tumor progression.

MDCT diagnosis of gastroduodenal ulcers: key imaging features with endoscopic correlation.

AbstractAlthough the overall prevalence of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and related hospitalizations are decreasing, the initial presentation of complicated PUD on CT remains common. It, therefore, remains critical for radiologists to recognize the findings of PUD at CT for initial diagnosis. While the CT findings of complicated PUD have been previously described in the literature, the CT findings of uncomplicated PUD have not been well documented. Furthermore, although CT is certainly not the diagnostic evaluation of choice for patients with suspected uncomplicated PUD, many patients with PUD will nonetheless present to the emergency department with unexplained abdominal pain and undergo MDCT evaluation as the initial diagnostic test. Therefore, recognizing the MDCT findings of uncomplicated PUD can help appropriately direct patient management, and help prevent the development of complications. To facilitate improved recognition of PUD on abdominal CT, we present an overview of the CT findings of both uncomplicated and complicated PUD, as well as several diagnostic pitfalls which can result in misdiagnosis from peptic ulcer mimics.

Pulmonary Intraparenchymal Blood Patching Decreases the Rate of Pneumothorax-Related Complications following Percutaneous CT–Guided Needle Biopsy

PURPOSE To investigate whether an autologous intraparenchymal blood patch (IPB) reduces the rate of pneumothorax-related complications associated with computed tomography (CT)-guided lung biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study included 834 patients: 482 who received an IPB and 352 who did not. Retrospective review was performed of all CT-guided lung biopsies performed at a single institution between August 2006 and September 2013. Patients were excluded if no aerated lung was crossed. The rate of pneumothorax, any associated intervention (eg, catheter placement, aspiration), chest tube placement, and chest tube replacement requiring hospital admission were compared by linear and multiple regression analysis. RESULTS Patients who received an IPB had a significantly lower rate of pneumothorax (145 of 482 [30%] vs 154 of 352 [44%]; P < .0001), pneumothorax-related intervention (eg, catheter aspiration, pleural blood patch, chest tube placement; 43 of 482 [8.9%] vs 85 of 352 [24.1%]; P < .0001), and chest tube placement along with other determinants requiring hospital admission (18 of 482 [3.7%] vs 27 of 352 [7.7%]; P < .0001). No complications related to the IPB were noted in the study group. CONCLUSIONS Autologous IPB placement is associated with a decreased rate of pneumothorax and associated interventions, including chest tube placement and hospital admission, after CT-guided lung biopsies, with no evidence of any adverse effects. These results suggest that an IPB is safe and effective and should be considered when aerated lung is traversed while performing a CT-guided lung biopsy.

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI Versus CT for the Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis in Children and Young Adults

OBJECTIVE Appendicitis is frequently diagnosed in the emergency department, most commonly using CT. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI with that of contrast-enhanced CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents when interpreted by abdominal radiologists and pediatric radiologists. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Our study included a prospectively enrolled cohort of 48 patients (12-20 years old) with nontraumatic abdominal pain who underwent CT and MRI. Fellowship-trained abdominal and pediatric radiologists reviewed all CT and MRI studies in randomized order, blinded to patient outcome. Likelihood for appendicitis was rated on a 5-point scale (1, definitely not appendicitis; 5, definitely appendicitis) for CT, the unenhanced portion of the MRI, and the entire contrast-enhanced MRI study. ROC curves were generated and AUC compared for each scan type for all six readers and then stratified by radiologist type. Image test characteristics, interrater reliability, and reading times were compared. RESULTS Sensitivity and specificity were 85.9% (95% CI, 76.2-92.7%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 89.7-96.7%) for unenhanced MRI, 93.6% (95% CI, 85.6-97.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 90.2-97%) for contrast-enhanced MRI, and 93.6% (95% CI, 85.6-97.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 90.2-97%) for CT. No difference was found in the diagnostic accuracy or interpretation time when comparing abdominal radiologists to pediatric radiologists (CT, 3.0 min vs 2.8 min; contrast-enhanced MRI, 2.4 min vs 1.8 min; unenhanced MRI, 1.5 min vs 2.3 min). Substantial agreement between abdominal and pediatric radiologists was seen for all methods (κ = 0.72-0.83). CONCLUSION The diagnostic accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis was very similar to CT. No statistically significant difference in accuracy was observed between imaging modality or radiologist subspecialty.