No abstract

Pulmonary edema may be classified as increased hydrostatic pressure edema, permeability edema with diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), permeability edema without DAD, or mixed edema. Pulmonary edema has variable manifestations. Postobstructive pulmonary edema typically manifests radiologically as septal lines, peribronchial cuffing, and, in more severe cases, central alveolar edema. Pulmonary edema with chronic pulmonary embolism manifests as sharply demarcated areas of increased ground-glass attenuation. Pulmonary edema with veno-occlusive disease manifests as large pulmonary arteries, diffuse interstitial edema with numerous Kerley lines, peribronchial cuffing, and a dilated right ventricle. Stage 1 near drowning pulmonary edema manifests as Kerley lines, peribronchial cuffing, and patchy, perihilar alveolar areas of airspace consolidation; stage 2 and 3 lesions are radiologically nonspecific. Pulmonary edema following administration of cytokines demonstrates bilateral, symmetric interstitial edema with thickened septal lines. High-altitude pulmonary edema usually manifests as central interstitial edema associated with peribronchial cuffing, ill-defined vessels, and patchy airspace consolidation. Neurogenic pulmonary edema manifests as bilateral, rather homogeneous airspace consolidations that predominate at the apices in about 50% of cases. Reperfusion pulmonary edema usually demonstrates heterogeneous airspace consolidations that predominate in the areas distal to the recanalized vessels. Postreduction pulmonary edema manifests as mild airspace consolidation involving the ipsilateral lung, whereas pulmonary edema due to air embolism initially demonstrates interstitial edema followed by bilateral, peripheral alveolar areas of increased opacity that predominate at the lung bases. Familiarity with the spectrum of radiologic findings in pulmonary edema from various causes will often help narrow the differential diagnosis.Abbreviations: ARDS = adult respiratory distress syndrome, DAD = diffuse alveolar damage and the Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland (P.V.). Recipient of a Certificate of Merit award for a scientific exhibit at the 1998 RSNA scientific assembly.

Patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening prefer CT colonography to both colonoscopy and DCBE. The majority of patients experience discomfort and inconvenience with cathartic bowel preparation.

Pelvic MRI is a promising single, comprehensive, nonradioactive modality to measure structural and functional pelvic floor disturbances in defecatory disorders. This method may provide insights into mechanisms of normal and disordered pelvic floor function in health and disease.

CTA and MRA had the same accuracy for characterization of renal vasculature in the preoperative assessment of living renal donors.

Factors that influence the likelihood that a polyp may be missed at interpretation of CT colonography include being seen only in one position, having flat endoscopic or CT morphology, having surface irregularity, and being located in a poorly prepared segment or along a thickened colonic wall. Understanding these features should lead to improved polyp detection on CT colonography.

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the learning curve on the diagnostic performances of CT colonography. Two blinded teams, each having a radiologist and gastroenterologist, prospectively examined 50 patients using helical CT scan followed by colonoscopy. Intermediate data evaluation was performed after 24 data sets (group 1) and compared with data from 26 subsequent patients (group 2). Parameters evaluated included sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and false-negative findings, time of data acquisition and interpretation. Using colonoscopy as the gold standard, sensitivity for CT colonography was for lesions >5 mm 63% for both teams for group 1 patients; for group 2 patients sensitivity was 45% for team 1 and 64% for team 2. Specificity per patients was for patient group 1 42% for team 1 and 58% for team 2; for patient group 2 it was 79% for both teams ( p=0.04 for team 1; p=0.2 for team 2). Comparing group 1 with group 2, the number of false-positive findings decreased significantly ( p=0.02). Furthermore, the mean time of data evaluation decreased from 45 to 17 min ( p=0.002) and the mean time of data acquisition from 19 to 17 min. With increasing experience, specificity and the time required for data interpretation improved and false positives decreased. There was no significant change of sensitivity, false-negative findings and time of data acquisition. A minimum experience of the readers is required for data interpretation of CT colonography.

Reconstructed high-resolution images generated from a single MDCT data acquisition are of comparable quality to images obtained using conventional axial high-resolution CT. However, contiguous MDCT is not recommended for diseases showing predominantly ground-glass patterns, because axial high-resolution CT delineates ground-glass attenuation significantly better.