We present a case of spontaneous antepartum uterine rupture through a previous lower segment Caesarean section (LSCS) scar with clinical features mimicking an advanced extrauterine pregnancy (AEUP) in a twin pregnancy at 28 weeks gestation. This report illustrates the need to consider a diagnosis of a ruptured uterus in any patient with a previous abdominal delivery who presents with mild abdominal tenderness and an ultrasonographic image suggestive of demised fetus in the intra-peritoneal cavity.
Cone-beam computed tomography is gaining popularity worldwide due to an increasingly diffuse and affordable in-office availability. It is becoming more commonplace for rhinoplasty surgeons to utilize this imaging as tool for preoperative assessment, however there is inconsistency among radiologists commenting on specific structures of the nose or nasal cavity as there is currently no standardized reporting protocol. The goal of this paper is to present clear guidelines for radiologists to report relevant nasal anatomy in the context of preoperative rhinoplasty evaluation. We have proposed the RhinoCEROS Guidelines, which stands for: • Rhinoplasty Cephalometric Evaluation for Radiologic pre-Operative Systematization. This guideline highlights the primary aspects of nasal anatomy on computed tomography(CT) that affect rhinoplasty outcomes and will provide radiologists with a straight forward template for reporting this increasingly popular use for CT scan.
BackgroundA mechanism-based approach to post-injury knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretation, following acute complex knee injury, is cited by several authors to provide increased reporting accuracy and efficiency, by allowing accurate prediction of injury to at-risk structures. This remains to our knowledge untested in a developing world setting and is of interest to us as South African general radiologists.ObjectiveTo assess the reliability of a mechanism-based approach to complex post-trauma knee MRI interpretation when implemented by general radiologists in a South African setting, and compare our results with the findings of North American authors who compiled and assessed the same classification. To measure the agreement between the observers.MethodsA quantitative, observational, investigative, retrospective study was performed using a sample of 50 post-trauma knee MRI studies conducted at Grey’s Hospital, Pietermaritzburg. Two investigators independently applied the consolidated mechanism-based approach compiled by Hayes et al. as a research tool to interpret the knee MRI studies, blinded to each other’s findings.ResultsInjury mechanism was assigned in 32% of cases by the principle investigator and in 20% of cases by the supervisor, with fair agreement between the observers (k = 0.39). The investigators agreed that 62% of cases were not classifiable by mechanism, 26% because of highly complex injury and 26% because of non-specific findings.ConclusionOur findings indicate that the Hayes et al. classification is a non-ideal tool when used by general radiologists in our setting, as the pure injury mechanisms described in the classification were rare in our study group. Patient epidemiology and investigator experience are highlighted as potential limiting factors in this study. Despite this, we advocate that the concept of a mechanism-based approach for the interpretation of acute post-trauma knee MRI holds value for general radiologists, particularly in patients imaged before resolution of bone bruising (within 12–16 weeks of injury), and those injured in sporting and similar athletic activities.
Background: A mechanism-based approach to post-injury knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretation, following acute complex knee injury, is cited by several authors to provide increased reporting accuracy and efficiency, by allowing accurate prediction of injury to at-risk structures. This remains to our knowledge untested in a developing world setting and is of interest to us as South African general radiologists. Objective: To assess the reliability of a mechanism-based approach to complex post-trauma knee MRI interpretation when implemented by general radiologists in a South African setting, and compare our results with the findings of North American authors who compiled and assessed the same classification. To measure the agreement between the observers. Methods: A quantitative, observational, investigative, retrospective study was performed using a sample of 50 post-trauma knee MRI studies conducted at Grey’s Hospital, Pietermaritzburg. Two investigators independently applied the consolidated mechanism-based approach compiled by Hayes et al. as a research tool to interpret the knee MRI studies, blinded to each other’s findings. Results: Injury mechanism was assigned in 32% of cases by the principle investigator and in 20% of cases by the supervisor, with fair agreement between the observers (k = 0.39). The investigators agreed that 62% of cases were not classifiable by mechanism, 26% because of highly complex injury and 26% because of non-specific findings. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the Hayes et al. classification is a non-ideal tool when used by general radiologists in our setting, as the pure injury mechanisms described in the classification were rare in our study group. Patient epidemiology and investigator experience are highlighted as potential limiting factors in this study. Despite this, we advocate that the concept of a mechanism-based approach for the interpretation of acute post-trauma knee MRI holds value for general radiologists, particularly in patients imaged before resolution of bone bruising (within 12–16 weeks of injury), and those injured in sporting and similar athletic activities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.