March 28th, 2011 by Medgadget in News
No Comments »
Engineers at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Hospital have been trialing a new system that uses Microsoft’s Kinect to allow surgeons to browse through diagnostic images without having to physically touch any controls. Using the system surgeons can manipulate images without losing sterility, without any assistance from a nurse or other person in the OR, all while not having to move away from the patient.
Here’s a report from The Globe and Mail:
More from The Globe and Mail: Toronto doctors try Microsoft’s Kinect in OR
Flashbacks: Microsoft Kinect 3D Camera for Hands-Free Radiologic Image Browsing;
*This blog post was originally published at Medgadget*
March 21st, 2011 by RyanDuBosar in Health Policy, News
No Comments »
Researchers concluded that surgical triage following a nuclear detonation should treat moderately injured patients first, then severely and mildly injured people, because of the limited medical personnel and material resources that would be available.
The model of time and resource-based triage (MORTT) tests different hospital-based triage approaches in the first 48 hours after a nuclear detonation of an improvised nuclear device. It’s not a tool in and of itself, but it examines the effect of various prioritizations and focuses primarily on the surgical needs of trauma victims.
The report appears in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. The entire issue, devoted to nuclear preparedness, is open access. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Hospitalist*
March 20th, 2011 by American Journal of Neuroradiology in Research
No Comments »
We report a pathologically proved craniopharyngioma in the prepontine cistern. A 50-year-old woman presented with swallowing difficulty for 1 month. She underwent brain MR and CT imaging.
T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images showed a large peripheral enhancing cystic mass in the prepontine cistern. Inside the lesion, high signal intensity (SI) on T1 and low SI on T2-weighted imaging were noted (Fig 1). The CT scan showed features similar to those on the MR images, except for the addition of a peripheral small calcification in the cystic lesion. We could not find any connection between the mass in the prepontine cistern and the sellar or parasellar area. The mass was partially surgically removed, and histopathologic examination revealed craniopharyngioma in the prepontine cistern.
View larger version (102K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]- Fig 1. A 50-year-old woman with a craniopharyngioma in the prepontine cistern. A, Sagittal T1-weighted image shows a cystic mass in the prepontine cistern. B, Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted sagittal image shows a peripheral enhancing cystic mass in the prepontine cistern. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at AJNR Blog*
March 17th, 2011 by Shadowfax in Health Tips, True Stories
No Comments »
I’ve remarked in the past how rarely I ever learn anything useful from physical exam. It’s one of those irritating things about medicine — we spent all that time in school learning arcane details of the exam, esoteric maneuvers like pulsus paradoxus, comparing pulses, Rovsing’s sign and the like. But in the modern era, it seems like about half the diagnoses are made by history and the other half are made by ancillary testing. Some people interpreted my comments to mean I don’t do an exam, or endorse a half-assed exam, which I do not. I always do an exam, as indicated by the presenting condition. I just don’t often learn much from it. But I always do it.
The other day, for example, I saw this elderly lady who was sent in for altered mental status. There wasn’t much (or indeed, any) history available. She was from some sort of nursing home, and they sent in essentially no information beyond a med list. The patient was non-verbal, but it wasn’t clear if she was chronically demented and non-verbal or whether this was a drastic change in baseline. So I went in to see her. I stopped at the doorway. “Uh-oh. She don’t look so good,” I commented to a nurse. As an aside, this “she don’t look so good” is maybe 90% of my job — the reflexive assessment of sick/not sick, which I suppose is itself a component of physical exam. But I digress. Her vitals were OK, other than some tachycardia*. Her color, flaccidity and apathy, however, really all screamed “sick” to me. Of course, the exam was otherwise nonfocal. Groans to pain, withdraws but does not localize or follow instructions. Seems symmetric on motor exam, from what I can elicit. Belly soft, lungs clear. Looks dry. No rash. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
February 28th, 2011 by Elaine Schattner, M.D. in Opinion, Research
No Comments »
There’s a new study out on mammography with important implications for breast cancer screening. The main result is that when radiologists review more mammograms per year, the rate of false positives declines.
The stated purpose of the research*, published in the journal Radiology, was to see how radiologists’ interpretive volume — essentially the number of mammograms read per year — affects their performance in breast cancer screening. The investigators collected data from six registries participating in the NCI’s Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, involving 120 radiologists who interpreted 783,965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006. So it was a big study, at least in terms of the number of images and outcomes assessed.
First — and before reaching any conclusions — the variance among seasoned radiologists’ everyday experience reading mammograms is striking. From the paper:
…We studied 120 radiologists with a median age of 54 years (range, 37–74 years); most worked full time (75%), had 20 or more years of experience (53%), and had no fellowship training in breast imaging (92%). Time spent in breast imaging varied, with 26% of radiologists working less than 20% and 33% working 80%–100% of their time in breast imaging. Most (61%) interpreted 1000–2999 mammograms annually, with 9% interpreting 5000 or more mammograms.
So they’re looking at a diverse bunch of radiologists reading mammograms, as young as 37 and as old as 74, most with no extra training in the subspecialty. The fraction of work effort spent on breast imaging –presumably mammography, sonos and MRIs — ranged from a quarter of the group (26 percent) who spend less than a fifth of their time on it and a third (33 percent) who spend almost all of their time on breast imaging studies. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Medical Lessons*
