Background:The emergency room's most dependable and accessible diagnostic imaging tools for detecting appendicitis early and averting catastrophic complications by ultrasound (US) computed tomography (CT) imaging. Objective: To evaluate the role of ultrasound and CT in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and their impact on surgical outcomes. Patients and Methods: This study was carried out as a prospective cross-sectional in collaboration
Background
Our aim is to evaluate LI-RADS-TR algorithm and its ability to assess the viability of TACE-treated HCC. We prospectively evaluated 100 patients with known HCC, treated with TACE and came for follow-up to assess therapy response and to plan the next step in treatment using triphasic CT study. Imaging response was evaluated according to LI-RADS-TR algorithm and compared to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) criterion. Reference standard for “viable” tumors in treated observations included presence of strong tumor hyperenhancement in arterial phase and washout in the delayed phase which also shows dense accumulation of iodized oil in the target lesion.
Results
When equivocal observations were considered as LR-TR viable, LR-TR viable resulted in 92.31% sensitivity, 83.33% specificity and 88% accuracy. On the other side when equivocal observations were considered as LR-TR nonviable, it resulted in 84.62% while the specificity increased to 100% with increased accuracy (92%). The mRECIST criteria for viable tumors (presence of APHE) showed sensitivity of 84.62% and specificity of 75%. mRECIST and LR-TR sensitivities were the same when equivocal lesions were considered as nonviable and lower mRECIST than LR-TR when equivocal lesions were considered as viable, while specificities were higher in LR-TR viable being 100% when equivocal lesions were considered as nonviable, 83.33% when equivocal lesions were considered as viable and 75% in mRECIST-viable.
Conclusions
LR-TR algorithm showed good diagnostic performance compared to mRECIST, with high specificity and sensitivity when equivocal lesions were considered as nonviable, as well as improved accuracy.
Background
Several Arab countries as well as many parts of the world are currently involved in armed conflicts. Characterization and documentation of combat-related injury patterns and their impact on healthcare are a difficult challenge. However, it is crucial in planning and developing of strategies capable of addressing the demands of ill-equipped medical facilities. The aim of this study was to record the different patterns of combat-related injuries sustained by civilians transferred to Egyptian tertiary hospitals for further investigation and definite treatment after primary stabilization by an emergency trauma team in their countries.
Results
Metallic foreign bodies were detected in different body locations in 49.1% of patients, while bullets were identified in 12.3%. Injuries involving the musculoskeletal system of the extremities were the most frequent (77.2%), followed in descending order by maxillofacial injuries (41%), thoracic injuries (32.1%), cranial injuries (31%), abdominal injuries (21.1%), spinal injuries (8.8%), and vascular injuries (4.7%). Among the extremities injuries, bone fractures were the most common (68.5%).
Conclusion
Radiological assessment aids in the evaluation of patients coming from conflict zones pre- and postoperatively, to recognize the precise sites and types of their injuries, the number and location of metallic shrapnel or bullets, and detection of possible associated complications, which aid in accurate demonstration of the extent and patterns of combat-related injuries and guide the management plan.
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.