Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Emergency Radiology 2/2020

01-04-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Original Article

Pediatric cervical spine injuries on CT: difference in accuracy of interpretations by pediatric versus non-pediatric radiologists

Authors: Nabil Hassan, Chloe Butler, James DeCou, Teri Crumb, Stephanie Flohr, Diann Reischman, Joseph Junewick

Published in: Emergency Radiology | Issue 2/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively compare the accuracy of interpretation of initial cervical computerized tomography (CCT) by a non-pediatric radiologist (NPR) versus a pediatric radiologist (PR).

Methods

IRB approval and consent waiver were granted to review all injured children from 2010 to 2014 in the trauma registry with CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine. Patients with negative CCT who subsequently had positive MRI from a single institution comprised the study group. Patients with negative CCT and MRI, matched by age, gender, and severity scores, comprised the control group. The CCTs from both groups were initially interpreted at the time of service by a NPR. Subsequently, a single PR with 20 years of experience blinded to clinical/imaging data reinterpreted these CCT examinations. CT interpretations were then compared with MRI results and evaluated for statistical significance using SSPS software. The data analysis utilized summary statistics, two-tailed binomial test, and univariate χ2 test. Significance for all comparisons was assessed at P < 0.05.

Results

The study group was comprised of the 21 patients with negative CCT and positive MRI. Of the cohort included, 76% (16) were male and 24% (5) were female. The age range was 1 month–17 years, with a mean age of 9.7 years. CCT interpretation by NPR had a specificity of 91.7% (sensitivity 71.2%, positive predictive value 81.3%, and negative predictive value 86.3%) compared with results of MRI. Six of the 21 negative CCTs were interpreted by the PR as positive, mainly craniocervical junction injuries, and confirmed by MRI (28.6%, P < .001 compared with the NPR); no control CCT was interpreted by the PR as positive (sensitivity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, and negative predictive value 58.3%).

Conclusion

In our retrospective study, a pediatric radiologist has improved recognition of pediatric cervical spine injuries on CT compared with non-pediatric radiologist.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gargas J, Yaszay B, Kruk P, Bastrom T, Shellington D, Khanna S (2013) An analysis of cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging findings after normal computed tomographic imaging findings in pediatric trauma patients: ten-year experience of a level I pediatric trauma center. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 74:1102–1107CrossRef Gargas J, Yaszay B, Kruk P, Bastrom T, Shellington D, Khanna S (2013) An analysis of cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging findings after normal computed tomographic imaging findings in pediatric trauma patients: ten-year experience of a level I pediatric trauma center. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 74:1102–1107CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Stiell IG, Clement C, Mcknight RD, Brison R, Schull MJ et al (2003) The Canadian C-Spine Rule versus the NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria in patients with trauma. NEJM 349:2510–2518CrossRef Stiell IG, Clement C, Mcknight RD, Brison R, Schull MJ et al (2003) The Canadian C-Spine Rule versus the NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria in patients with trauma. NEJM 349:2510–2518CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ehrlich P, Wee C, Drongowski R, Rana A (2009) Canadian C-spine Rule and the National X-Radiography Utilization Low-Risk Criteria for C-spine radiography in young trauma patients. J Pediatr Surg 44:987–991CrossRef Ehrlich P, Wee C, Drongowski R, Rana A (2009) Canadian C-spine Rule and the National X-Radiography Utilization Low-Risk Criteria for C-spine radiography in young trauma patients. J Pediatr Surg 44:987–991CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Leonard JC, Kuppermann N, Olsen C, Cimpello L, Brown KM et al (2011) Factors associated with cervical spine injury in children following blunt trauma. Ann Emerg Med 58:145–155CrossRef Leonard JC, Kuppermann N, Olsen C, Cimpello L, Brown KM et al (2011) Factors associated with cervical spine injury in children following blunt trauma. Ann Emerg Med 58:145–155CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE (2002) Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 224:861–869CrossRef Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE (2002) Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 224:861–869CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Karmazyn B, Wanner MR, Marine MB, Tilmans L, Jennings SG, Hibbard RA (2019) The added value of a second read by pediatric radiologists for outside skeletal surveys. Pediatr Radiol 49:203–209CrossRef Karmazyn B, Wanner MR, Marine MB, Tilmans L, Jennings SG, Hibbard RA (2019) The added value of a second read by pediatric radiologists for outside skeletal surveys. Pediatr Radiol 49:203–209CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Eakins C, Ellis WD, Pruthi S, Johnson DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Yu C, Kan JH (2012) Second opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists at a pediatric hospital: rate of disagreement and clinical implications. Am J Roentgenol 199:916–920CrossRef Eakins C, Ellis WD, Pruthi S, Johnson DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Yu C, Kan JH (2012) Second opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists at a pediatric hospital: rate of disagreement and clinical implications. Am J Roentgenol 199:916–920CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Mullerad M, Hricak H, Wang L, Chen HN, Kattan MW, Scardino PT (2004) Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging. Radiology 232:140–146CrossRef Mullerad M, Hricak H, Wang L, Chen HN, Kattan MW, Scardino PT (2004) Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging. Radiology 232:140–146CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kihiczak D, Novelline RA, Lawrason JN (2001) Should an MR scan be performed routinely after normal clearance CT scan in the trauma patient? Experience with 59 cases. Emerg Radiol 8:276–278CrossRef Kihiczak D, Novelline RA, Lawrason JN (2001) Should an MR scan be performed routinely after normal clearance CT scan in the trauma patient? Experience with 59 cases. Emerg Radiol 8:276–278CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Hanson JA, Blackmore CC, Mann FA, Wilson AJ (2000) Cervical spine injury: accuracy of helical CT used as a screening technique. Emerg Radiol 7:31–35CrossRef Hanson JA, Blackmore CC, Mann FA, Wilson AJ (2000) Cervical spine injury: accuracy of helical CT used as a screening technique. Emerg Radiol 7:31–35CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Schoenfeld AJ, Bono CM, McGuire KJ, Warholic N, Harris MB (2010) Computed tomography alone versus computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the identification of occult injuries to the cervical spine: a meta-analysis. J Trauma 68:109–114CrossRef Schoenfeld AJ, Bono CM, McGuire KJ, Warholic N, Harris MB (2010) Computed tomography alone versus computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the identification of occult injuries to the cervical spine: a meta-analysis. J Trauma 68:109–114CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Alessandrino F, Bono CM, Poffer CA, Harris MB, Sodickson A (2019) Spectrum of diagnostic errors in cervical spine trauma imaging and their clinical significance. Emerg Radiol 26:409–416CrossRef Alessandrino F, Bono CM, Poffer CA, Harris MB, Sodickson A (2019) Spectrum of diagnostic errors in cervical spine trauma imaging and their clinical significance. Emerg Radiol 26:409–416CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Muhm M, Danko T, Henzler T, Luiz T, Winkler H, Ruffing T (2015) Pediatric trauma care with computed tomography-criteria for CT scanning. Emerg Radiol 22:613–621CrossRef Muhm M, Danko T, Henzler T, Luiz T, Winkler H, Ruffing T (2015) Pediatric trauma care with computed tomography-criteria for CT scanning. Emerg Radiol 22:613–621CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Yan YY, Khoo JN, Tan TJ, Francis J, Chong LR, Chan EH (2018) Reporting of CT cervical spine after office hours by radiology trainees-analysis of discrepancy rates and RADPEER scores. Emerg Radiol 25:399–406CrossRef Yan YY, Khoo JN, Tan TJ, Francis J, Chong LR, Chan EH (2018) Reporting of CT cervical spine after office hours by radiology trainees-analysis of discrepancy rates and RADPEER scores. Emerg Radiol 25:399–406CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Junewick JJ, Meesa IR, Luttenton CR, Hinman JM (2009) Occult injury of the pediatric craniocervical juntion. Emerg Radiol 16:483–488CrossRef Junewick JJ, Meesa IR, Luttenton CR, Hinman JM (2009) Occult injury of the pediatric craniocervical juntion. Emerg Radiol 16:483–488CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Arenson RL (2018) Factors affecting interpretative accuracy: how can we reduce errors? Radiology 287:213–214CrossRef Arenson RL (2018) Factors affecting interpretative accuracy: how can we reduce errors? Radiology 287:213–214CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Onwubiko C, Mooney DP (2016) The value of official reinterpretation of trauma computed tomography scans from referring hospitals. J Pediatr Surg 51:486–489CrossRef Onwubiko C, Mooney DP (2016) The value of official reinterpretation of trauma computed tomography scans from referring hospitals. J Pediatr Surg 51:486–489CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Pediatric cervical spine injuries on CT: difference in accuracy of interpretations by pediatric versus non-pediatric radiologists
Authors
Nabil Hassan
Chloe Butler
James DeCou
Teri Crumb
Stephanie Flohr
Diann Reischman
Joseph Junewick
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Emergency Radiology / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1070-3004
Electronic ISSN: 1438-1435
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-019-01743-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Emergency Radiology 2/2020 Go to the issue