Repetitive strain injuries are beginning to be widely recognized as a serious occupational risk for sonographers. The goal of this study was to establish the incidence of musculoskeletal symptomatology and repetitive strain injuries in sonographers from Washington state and Oregon and to correlate certain physical attributes, work load, and work habits with the reporting rates of musculoskeletal symptomatology and repetitive strain injuries. The data for this study were gathered through a comprehensive questionnaire. Eighteen percent of respondents suffered no symptoms; 66% suffered symptoms without repetitive strain injury, and 15% were diagnosed with repetitive strain injury. The analysis revealed that a positive correlation exists between certain ergonomically unsound work habits and increased symptomatology. The proportion of repetitive strain injury-diagnosed sonographers tended to increase with more years in the profession. The reporting rate of musculoskeletal symptomatology and repetitive strain injuries also appeared to be influenced by other variables, such as gender, work load, and stress in the workplace.

No abstract

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an important part of current ultrasound imaging practice. Sonographers, radiologists and other sonologists should consider CEUS as a standard tool in the diagnostic toolbox of ultrasound and utilise it liberally to solve a wide range of imaging problems whilst reducing the need to resort to CT or MRI. Setting up a CEUS service is within easy reach of all motivated practitioners. The initial process requires assessment of the demand for CEUS, ensuring staff readiness, preparing administrative processes and obtaining CEUS supplies. The CEUS examination includes gaining informed consent, ensuring authorisation to administer contrast agent (preferably by means of a standing order), conventional pre-scan of the area of interest, insertion of a peripheral IV cannula, preparation of the contrast agent, initiation of the contrast imaging mode, administration of the contrast agent, performance of the examination and aftercare. A number of other important considerations are discussed including cannulation and IV certification, scopes of practice for sonographers performing CEUS, contrast dosing, scheduling, training, interpretation, reporting and quality control.

The reporting roles of sonographers in Australasia vary considerably. A large number of sonographers already routinely produce formal reports, while others are moving into clinical ultrasound roles where reporting is expected. This article summarises the best practice in reporting of ultrasound examinations based on international literature and addresses key topics including report structure, clinical content, style and language. Numerous examples and sample phrases are provided and common pitfalls are discussed.

Introduction Sonographers demonstrate a high standard of diagnostic performance and work with a considerable degree of professional independence. In Australasia, sonographers typically generate a preliminary report which is reviewed by the radiologist who issues a final report. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiologist's review is required in cases reported as normal by the sonographer. Methods This study was a retrospective review of 1000 abdominal US examinations considered normal by sonographers that were subsequently reported by radiologists. Any findings reported by radiologists that were not reported by sonographers were analysed and separated into errors or discrepancies according to commonly accepted definition. Results The 1000 abdominal examinations included 244 complete abdominal, 200 hepatobiliary, 506 urinary tract and 50 other abdominal examinations. Patients’ age ranged from < 1 to 94 years (mean = 35 years, median = 32 years). US examinations were performed by any one of 14 sonographers with 1–21 years (mean = 6 years, median = 7 years) of clinical experience. Two diagnostic errors were made by sonographers and two errors by radiologists. In no single case did the radiologist uncover a case of an acute or serious illness, illness requiring admission or urgent clinical review, nor did the radiologist identify the cause for the presenting symptoms. Eighteen discrepancies were found, but these were of trivial nature and most were rated by specialist clinicians as irrelevant. Conclusion Sonographers are accurate in distinguishing normal abdominal US examinations. The involvement of a radiologist in a second reading of normal abdominal US examinations is unnecessary.

No abstract

Introduction Ultrasound (US) plays a key role in the detection of testicular tumours. However, reliable characterisation of testicular tumours with US is difficult. The purpose of this study was to investigate the morphological patterns of testicular tumours as seen on modern US imaging and correlate these with histology. Methods The imaging features of 50 testicular tumours were analysed and compared with histology. The US appearance was categorized into 15 distinct morphological patterns. Results Patient’s age ranged from 0.5 to 85 years. Of the 50 tumours in our series, 49 were malignant. Nearly half of the malignancies were seminomatous germ cell tumours (SGCTs). Tumours ranged in size from 10 to 130 mm with considerable overlap of size between tumours of different histological type. Even small (10 mm) tumours in our cohort were malignant. SGCTs demonstrated a narrower range of morphological appearances than non‐seminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCTs). Calcification was common in both SGCT and NSGCTs. Multicomponent cystic‐solid appearance was only seen in NSGCTs. Conclusion The differentiation of testicular tumours with US continues to be challenging. In this paper, we have demonstrated the diverse morphological patterns of testicular neoplasms and have proposed the study of tumour morphological features as a promising research direction.

Purpose: To assess the ultrasound performance on patients presenting to Waikato hospital ultrasound department with a clinical suspicion of appendicitis. Method: This was a retrospective audit of 309 patients presenting to our department within business hours with clinical suspicion of appendicitis between September 2012 and March 2014. The patients were evaluated by operators of mixed experience. The scan reports, surgical reports, histology and discharge summaries were reviewed. Results: The overall sensitivity of ultrasound on detecting appendicitis was 50%, the specificity was 98.5%. The positive predictive value and the negative predictive value were 84% and 92.6% respectively. The appendix was visualised in 14% of the true positive cases. When the appendix was visualised, the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound was 95.2% and 69.2% respectively. Conclusion: The sensitivity of ultrasound to appendicitis was lower than that commonly reported in the literature, but on a par with a recent audit from another tertiary hospital in New Zealand.