RESUMEN
Objective@#This study aimed to determine the prevalence of vertebral venous congestion (VVC) in patients with chemoport insertion, evaluate the imaging characteristics of nodular VVC, and identify the factors associated with VVC. @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective single-center study was based on follow-up contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography (CT) of 1412 adult patients who underwent chemoport insertion between January 2016 and December 2016. The prevalence of venous stenosis, reflux, and VVC were evaluated. The imaging features of nodular VVC, including specific locations within the vertebral body, were analyzed. To identify the factors associated with VVC, patients with VVC were compared with a subset of patients without VVC who had been followed up for > 3 years without developing VVC after chemoport insertion.Toward this, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. @*Results@#After excluding 333 patients, 1079 were analyzed (mean age ± standard deviation, 62.3 ± 11.6 years; 540 females).The prevalence of VVC was 5.8% (63/1079), with all patients (63/63) demonstrating vertebral venous reflux and 67% (42/63) with innominate vein stenosis. The median interval between chemoport insertion and VVC was 515 days (interquartile range, 204–881 days). The prevalence of nodular VVC was 1.5% (16/1079), with a mean size of 5.9 ± 3.1 mm and attenuation of 784 ± 162 HU. Nodular VVC tended to be located subcortically. Forty-four patients with VVC underwent CT examinations with contrast injections in both arms; the VVC disappeared in 70% (31/44) when the contrast was injected in the arm contralateral to the chemoport site. Bevacizumab use was independently associated with VVC (odds ratio, 3.45; P < 0.001). @*Conclusion@#The prevalence of VVC and nodular VVC was low in patients who underwent chemoport insertion. Nodular VVC was always accompanied by vertebral venous reflux and tended to be located subcortically. To avoid VVC, contrast injection in the arm contralateral to the chemoport site is preferred.
RESUMEN
Objective@#We compared appendiceal visualization on 2-mSv CT vs. conventional-dose CT (median 7 mSv) in adolescents and young adults and analyzed the undesirable clinical and diagnostic outcomes that followed appendiceal nonvisualization. @*Materials and Methods@#A total of 3074 patients aged 15–44 years (mean ± standard deviation, 28 ± 9 years; 1672 female) from 20 hospitals were randomized to the 2-mSv CT or conventional-dose CT group (1535 vs. 1539) from December 2013 through August 2016. A total of 161 radiologists from 20 institutions prospectively rated appendiceal visualization (grade 0, not identified; grade 1, unsure or partly visualized; and grade 2, clearly and entirely visualized) and the presence of appendicitis in these patients. The final diagnosis was based on CT imaging and surgical, pathologic, and clinical findings. We analyzed undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes, such as negative appendectomy, perforated appendicitis, more extensive than simple appendectomy, delay in patient management, or incorrect CT diagnosis, which followed appendiceal nonvisualization (defined as grade 0 or 1) and compared the outcomes between the two groups. @*Results@#In the 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT groups, appendiceal visualization was rated as grade 0 in 41 (2.7%) and 18 (1.2%) patients, respectively; grade 1 in 181 (11.8%) and 81 (5.3%) patients, respectively; and grade 2 in 1304 (85.0%) and 1421 (92.3%) patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Overall, undesirable outcomes were rare in both groups. Compared to the conventional-dose CT group, the 2-mSv CT group had slightly higher rates of perforated appendicitis (1.1% [17] vs. 0.5% [7], p = 0.06) and false-negative diagnoses (0.4% [6] vs. 0.0% [0], p = 0.01) following appendiceal nonvisualization. Otherwise, these two groups were comparable. @*Conclusion@#The use of 2-mSv CT instead of conventional-dose CT impairs appendiceal visualization in more patients. However, appendiceal nonvisualization on 2-mSv CT rarely leads to undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rates of technical success, clinical success, and complications of fluoroscopy-guided lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our hospital, and informed consent was waived. Ninety-six procedures on 60 consecutive patients performed July 2008 to December 2013 were evaluated. The patients were referred for the fluoroscopy-guided procedure due to failed attempts at a bedside approach, a history of lumbar surgery, difficulty cooperating, or obesity. Fluoroscopy-guided lumbar drainage procedures were performed in the lateral decubitus position with a midline puncture of L3/4 in the interspinous space. The catheter tip was positioned at the T12/L1 level, and the catheter was visualized on contrast agent-aided fluoroscopy. A standard angiography system with a rotatable C-arm was used. The definitions of technical success, clinical success, and complications were defined prior to the study. RESULTS: The technical and clinical success rates were 99.0% (95/96) and 89.6% (86/96), respectively. The mean hospital stay for an external lumbar drain was 4.84 days. Nine cases of minor complications and eight major complications were observed, including seven cases of meningitis, and one retained catheter requiring surgical removal. CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopy-guided external lumbar drainage is a technically reliable procedure in difficult patients with failed attempts at a bedside procedure, history of lumbar surgery, difficulties in cooperation, or obesity.