Wendy Jo Svetanoff

Radiation exposure - how do CT scans for appendicitis compare between a free standing children's hospital and non-dedicated pediatric facilities?

BACKGROUND We compare the amount of radiation children receive from CT scans performed at non-dedicated pediatric facilities (OH) versus those at a dedicated childrens hospital (CH). METHODS Using a retrospective chart review, all children undergoing CT scanning for appendicitis at an OH were compared to children undergoing CT imaging for appendicitis at a CH between January 2011 and November 2012. RESULTS One hundred sixty-three children underwent CT scans at 42 different OH. Body mass index was similar between the two groups (21.00±6.49kg/m(2), 19.58±5.18kg/m(2), P=0.07). Dose length product (DLP) was 620±540.3 at OH and 253.78±211.08 at CH (P < 0.001). OH CT scans accurately diagnosed appendicitis in 81%, while CT scans at CH were accurate in 95% (P=0.026). CTDIvol was recorded in 65 patients with subset analysis showing CTDIvol of 16.98±15.58 and 4.89±2.64, a DLP of 586.25±521.59 and 143.54±41.19, and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) of 26.71±23.1 and 3.81±2.02 at OH and CH, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSION Using SSDE as a marker for radiation exposure, children received 86% less radiation and had improved diagnostic accuracy when CT scans are performed at a CH.

Lower radiation exposure from body CT imaging for trauma at a dedicated pediatric hospital

PURPOSE We compare radiation exposure from body CT imaging for blunt trauma performed at outside hospitals (OH) versus our childrens hospital (CH). METHODS We performed a retrospective chart review of all children transferred to our facility for management of trauma after undergoing a body CT scan at an OH from June 2011 to August 2013. Radiation from OH images was compared to our CH by matching to age, gender, and nearest date. Radiation measures included dose length product (DLP), computed tomography dose index (CTDI), and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE). RESULTS Fifty-one children were transferred from 39 OH. Abdomen/pelvis and chest/abdomen/pelvis imaging was performed in 30 and 21 children, respectively. Demographics are shown in Table 1. Results are illustrated in Tables 2 and 3. Contrast was utilized in 45 (1 oral, 41 IV, 3 both) and 51 (49 IV, 2 both). CT scans were performed at OH and CH, respectively (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Children receive significantly less radiation exposure with body CT imaging for blunt trauma when performed at our dedicated CH. CT scans were significantly more likely to be ordered with appropriate contrast at our CH.

Quality of life after esophageal resection

Introduction Esophageal resection is the primary treatment for malignant esophageal disease and the last resort for benign end-stage esophageal disease. There is a paucity of research comparing the long-term quality of life (QoL) following surgery among these two populations. The aim of this study was to examine the patient reported QoL after esophageal resection using questionnaires focusing on general well-being and esophageal-specific symptoms. Methods A prospectively maintained database of post-operatively administered European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) with supplemental esophageal cancer-specific questionnaires (OES-18) was queried after institutional review board approval through Creighton University School of Medicine. Inclusions were made if patients received an esophageal resection for benign or malignant esophageal disease. Emergency procedures, delayed reconstructions, and stage IV disease were excluded. Student’s t-test was used for domains of function, symptoms, QoL, and esophageal-specific complaints to compare the groups with each other and with the general population. Results A total of 39 out of 248 patients with malignant disease and 24 out of 46 with benign disease completed the questionnaire. A mean post-operative follow-up of 53 months with a response rate of 40% was obtained. There was no difference in physical (p=0.81), role (p =0.37), conditional (p=0.73), emotional (p=0.06), or social functions (p=0.42) between the general population and the esophageal resection groups. There was also no significant difference in generalized pain (p=0.86), nausea/vomiting (p=0.27), fatigue (p=0.86), swallowing (p=0.35), or esophageal pain (p=0.12). The malignant cohort had better outcomes than the benign cohort with respect to eating (p=0.04), indigestion (p=0.04), and QoL (p=<0.01). Discussion The underlying disease between these cohorts is drastically different, but postoperative functional status, generalized symptoms, swallowing ability, and esophageal pain were similar. There was no difference in functional status between the general population and the esophageal resection cohorts. Patients with malignant disease reported less problems with eating and a better QoL than their benign counterparts.