How do we diagnose acute diverticulitis? Results of a national survey about the role of imaging techniques

N. Roson , A. Antolín , A. Torregrosa , S. Pedraza Gutiérrez , M. Lopez Cano , J.M. Badia
{"title":"How do we diagnose acute diverticulitis? Results of a national survey about the role of imaging techniques","authors":"N. Roson ,&nbsp;A. Antolín ,&nbsp;A. Torregrosa ,&nbsp;S. Pedraza Gutiérrez ,&nbsp;M. Lopez Cano ,&nbsp;J.M. Badia","doi":"10.1016/j.rxeng.2023.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The choice of imaging techniques<span> in the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis is controversial. This study aimed to determine radiologists’ preferences for different imaging techniques in the management of acute diverticulitis and the extent to which they use the different radiologic techniques for this purpose.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>An online survey was disseminated through the Spanish Society of Abdominal Imaging (</span><em>Sociedad Española de Diagnóstico por Imagen del Abdomen</em> (SEDIA)) and Twitter. The survey included questions about respondents’ working environments, protocolization, personal preferences, and actual practice in the radiological management of acute diverticulitis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>A total of 186 responses were obtained, 72% from radiologists working in departments organized by organ/systems. Protocols for managing acute diverticulitis were in force in 48% of departments. Ultrasonography was the initial imaging technique in 47.5%, and 73% of the respondents considered that ultrasonography should be the first-choice technique; however, in practice, ultrasonography was the initial imaging technique in only 24% of departments. </span>Computed tomography was the first imaging technique in 32.8% of departments, and its use was significantly more common outside normal working hours. The most frequently employed classification was the Hinchey classification (75%). Nearly all (96%) respondents expressed a desire for a consensus within the specialty about using the same classification. Hospitals with &gt;500 beds and those organized by organ/systems had higher rates of protocolization, use of classifications, and belief that ultrasonography is the best first-line imaging technique.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The radiologic management of acute diverticulitis varies widely, with differences in the protocols used, radiologists’ opinions, and actual clinical practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94185,"journal":{"name":"Radiologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173510723000885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The choice of imaging techniques in the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis is controversial. This study aimed to determine radiologists’ preferences for different imaging techniques in the management of acute diverticulitis and the extent to which they use the different radiologic techniques for this purpose.

Methods

An online survey was disseminated through the Spanish Society of Abdominal Imaging (Sociedad Española de Diagnóstico por Imagen del Abdomen (SEDIA)) and Twitter. The survey included questions about respondents’ working environments, protocolization, personal preferences, and actual practice in the radiological management of acute diverticulitis.

Results

A total of 186 responses were obtained, 72% from radiologists working in departments organized by organ/systems. Protocols for managing acute diverticulitis were in force in 48% of departments. Ultrasonography was the initial imaging technique in 47.5%, and 73% of the respondents considered that ultrasonography should be the first-choice technique; however, in practice, ultrasonography was the initial imaging technique in only 24% of departments. Computed tomography was the first imaging technique in 32.8% of departments, and its use was significantly more common outside normal working hours. The most frequently employed classification was the Hinchey classification (75%). Nearly all (96%) respondents expressed a desire for a consensus within the specialty about using the same classification. Hospitals with >500 beds and those organized by organ/systems had higher rates of protocolization, use of classifications, and belief that ultrasonography is the best first-line imaging technique.

Conclusions

The radiologic management of acute diverticulitis varies widely, with differences in the protocols used, radiologists’ opinions, and actual clinical practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何诊断急性憩室炎?一项关于成像技术作用的全国性调查结果
引言影像学技术在诊断急性憩室炎中的选择存在争议。本研究旨在确定放射科医生在治疗急性憩室炎时对不同成像技术的偏好,以及他们为此目的使用不同放射学技术的程度。方法通过西班牙腹部成像学会(Sociedad Española de Diagnóstico por Imagen del Abdomen(SEDIA))和推特进行在线调查。该调查包括关于受访者的工作环境、协议、个人偏好以及急性憩室炎放射治疗的实际实践的问题。结果共获得186份回复,其中72%来自按器官/系统组织的科室的放射科医生。48%的科室实施了治疗急性憩室炎的方案。超声检查是最初的成像技术,占47.5%,73%的受访者认为超声检查应是首选技术;然而,在实践中,超声是最初的成像技术,只有24%的部门。在32.8%的部门中,计算机断层扫描是第一种成像技术,在正常工作时间之外,它的使用更为常见。最常用的分类法是Hinchey分类法(75%)。几乎所有(96%)的受访者都表示希望在专业内部就使用相同的分类达成共识。拥有>;500张床位和按器官/系统组织的床位具有更高的原球茎形成率、分类使用率,并相信超声检查是最好的一线成像技术。结论急性憩室炎的放射学治疗方法差异很大,在使用的方案、放射科医生的意见和实际临床实践方面存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Teaching methodologies in the undergraduate teaching of radiology The pathologies of migrants who travel by boat documented on imaging The importance of MDCT in the evaluation of risk factors before the TAVI procedure and its complications after implantation Congenital pyriform apertura stenosis Persistent left superior vena cava: clinical and radiological significance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1