SummaryUpper extremity deep-vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is common and can cause important complications, including pulmonary embolism and post-thrombotic syndrome. An increase in the use of central venous catheters, particularly peripherally inserted central catheters has been associated with an increasing rate of disease. Accurate diagnosis is essential to guide management, but there are limitations to the available evidence for available diagnostic tests. Anticoagulation is the mainstay of therapy, but interventional treatments may be considered in select situations. The risk of UEDVT may be reduced by more careful selection of patients who receive central venous catheters and by use of smaller catheters. Herein we review the diagnosis, management and prevention of UEDVT. Due to paucity of research, some principles are drawn from studies of lower extremity DVT. We present a practical approach to diagnosing the patient with suspected deep-vein thrombosis of the upper extremity.

Familiarity with the realm of imaging manifestations of retroperitoneal fibrosis is vital to ensure correct diagnosis and optimal treatment.

Although there is a known increased risk of thromboembolism (DVT and PE) in oncology patients, many cases are not diagnosed, which can prove fatal. Staging CT simultaneously affords one sole investigation of the pulmonary, IVC, iliac, and upper femoral veins, thereby providing an important diagnostic opportunity. Assessment for DVT and PE is important when reviewing staging CT scans.

Introduction In our institutional experience, determination of the alpha (α) angle at MR arthrography as an indicator of the likelihood of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is fraught with inconsistency. The aims of this study were to quantify the degree of variability in and calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the α angle in suggesting a diagnosis of cam impingement, to determine the accuracy of a positive clinical impingement test, and to suggest alternative MR arthrographic measures of femoral head-neck overgrowth and determine their diagnostic utilities. Materials and methods We carried out a retrospective analysis of MR arthrographic studies performed during a 4-year period, combined with chart analysis, which allowed identification of 78 patients in whom surgical correlation was also available. The status of a preoperative clinical impingement test was also noted. Patients were designated as having cam-type FAI (Group A, n= 39) if intra-operative femoral head-neck junction bony osteochondroplasty/arthoscopic femoral debridement was performed. Group B (n=39) acted as controls. Three radiologists independently and blindly performed a series of measurements (α angle and two newly proposed measurements) in each patient on two separate occasions. An α angle of greater than 55°was considered indicative of the presence of cam-type FAI.Results Performance values for α angle measurement were poor for each observer. There was considerable (up to 30% of the mean value) intra-observer variability between the first and second α angle measurements for each subject. Binary logistic regression analysis confirmed that the α angle is of no value in predicting the presence or absence of cam-FAI. A statistically significant difference existed between Groups A and B with regard to the newly proposed anterior femoral distance (AFD; p=0.004). Using an AFD value of 3.60 mm or greater as being indicative of the presence of cam-FAI yields a 0.67 performance measure (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). The second proposed parameter (femoral neck ratio) was of no value in suggesting the presence or absence of this condition. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the clinical impingement test were 76.9%, 87.2%, 85.7% and 79.1% respectively. Conclusions Femoral α angle measurement is associated with considerable variability. This index performed poorly in our patient population and was statistically of no value in suggesting the presence or absence of cam-FAI. One of our proposed measures, the AFD, outperformed the α angle, though to an insufficient degree to suggest its routine incorporation into clinical practice. Our experience suggests that the clinical impingement test remains the most reliable predictor of the presence of this condition.