{"title":"Exploring the Effect of Domain-Specific Transfer Learning for Thyroid Nodule Classification","authors":"Sanaz Vahdati MD , Bardia Khosravi MD, MPH, MHPE , Pouria Rouzrokh MD, MPH, MHPE , Bradley J. Erickson MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.011","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Pages 1796-1799"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141473282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.022
Kevin Vo BS , Garrett Trang BS , Ami Gokli MD , Cory M. Pfeifer MD, MBA, MPH, MS
{"title":"Diagnostic Radiology Continues to Fail to Capture the Preliminary Year","authors":"Kevin Vo BS , Garrett Trang BS , Ami Gokli MD , Cory M. Pfeifer MD, MBA, MPH, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.022","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Pages 1810-1812"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141556085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.016
Expert Panel on Neurological Imaging, Vinil N. Shah MD , Matthew S. Parsons MD , Daniel J. Boulter MD , Judah Burns MD , Brian Callaghan MD, MS , Rami Eldaya MD , Michael Hanak MD , Alvand Hassankhani MD , Troy A. Hutchins MD , Christopher D. Jackson MD , Majid A. Khan MD , Jeff Mullin MD, MBA , A. Orlando Ortiz MD, MBA , Charles Reitman MD , Christopher Sampson MD , Claire K. Sandstrom MD , Vincent M. Timpone MD , Andrew T. Trout MD , Bruno Policeni MD, MBA
Thoracic back pain is a common site for inflammatory, neoplastic, metabolic, infectious, and degenerative conditions, and may be associated with significant disability and morbidity. Uncomplicated acute thoracic back pain and/or radiculopathy does not typically warrant imaging. Imaging may be considered in those patients who have persistent pain despite 6 weeks of conservative treatment. Early imaging may also be warranted in patients presenting with “red flag” history or symptoms, including those with a known or suspected history of cancer, infection, immunosuppression, or trauma; in myelopathic patients; or in those with a history of prior thoracic spine fusion.
The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
{"title":"ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Thoracic Back Pain","authors":"Expert Panel on Neurological Imaging, Vinil N. Shah MD , Matthew S. Parsons MD , Daniel J. Boulter MD , Judah Burns MD , Brian Callaghan MD, MS , Rami Eldaya MD , Michael Hanak MD , Alvand Hassankhani MD , Troy A. Hutchins MD , Christopher D. Jackson MD , Majid A. Khan MD , Jeff Mullin MD, MBA , A. Orlando Ortiz MD, MBA , Charles Reitman MD , Christopher Sampson MD , Claire K. Sandstrom MD , Vincent M. Timpone MD , Andrew T. Trout MD , Bruno Policeni MD, MBA","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.016","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.016","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Thoracic back pain is a common site for inflammatory, neoplastic, metabolic, infectious, and degenerative conditions, and may be associated with significant disability and morbidity. Uncomplicated acute thoracic back pain and/or radiculopathy does not typically warrant imaging. Imaging may be considered in those patients who have persistent pain despite 6 weeks of conservative treatment. Early imaging may also be warranted in patients presenting with “red flag” history or symptoms, including those with a known or suspected history of cancer, infection, immunosuppression, or trauma; in myelopathic patients; or in those with a history of prior thoracic spine fusion.</div><div>The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Pages S504-S517"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142564632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.013
Jeshwanth Mohan BS , Samantha L. Heller MD, PhD
{"title":"Patient-Friendly Summary of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Radiologic Management of Iliofemoral Venous Thrombosis","authors":"Jeshwanth Mohan BS , Samantha L. Heller MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.013","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Page e95"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141903876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.002
Ehsan Samei PhD , Donald Frush MD , M. Mahesh MS, PhD
{"title":"Quality Measures for Medical Imaging: Current Status, Gaps and Solutions","authors":"Ehsan Samei PhD , Donald Frush MD , M. Mahesh MS, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Pages 1826-1829"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141984122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.021
Expert Panels on Vascular and Gastrointestinal Imaging, Prashant Nagpal MD , Bari Dane MD , Ayaz Aghayev MD , Kathryn J. Fowler MD , Sandeep S. Hedgire MD , Twyla B. Bartel DO, MBA , Brooks D. Cash MD , Jeremy D. Collins MD , David S. Kirsch MD , Hao S. Lo MD, MBA , Jason A. Pietryga MD , Beth Ripley MD, PhD , Cynthia S. Santillan MD , David H. Kim MD , Michael L. Steigner MD
This document summarizes the relevant literature for the selection of the initial imaging in five clinical scenarios in patients with suspected or known nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). These clinical scenarios include suspected nonvariceal UGIB without endoscopy performed; endoscopically confirmed nonvariceal UGIB with clear source but treatment not possible or continued bleeding after endoscopic treatment; endoscopically confirmed nonvariceal UGIB without a confirmed source; suspected nonvariceal UGIB with negative endoscopy; and postsurgical or post-traumatic nonvariceal UGIB when endoscopy is contraindicated. The appropriateness of imaging modalities as they apply to each clinical scenario is rated as usually appropriate, may be appropriate, and usually not appropriate to assist the selection of the most appropriate imaging modality in the corresponding clinical scenarios of nonvariceal UGIB.
The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
{"title":"ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: 2024 Update","authors":"Expert Panels on Vascular and Gastrointestinal Imaging, Prashant Nagpal MD , Bari Dane MD , Ayaz Aghayev MD , Kathryn J. Fowler MD , Sandeep S. Hedgire MD , Twyla B. Bartel DO, MBA , Brooks D. Cash MD , Jeremy D. Collins MD , David S. Kirsch MD , Hao S. Lo MD, MBA , Jason A. Pietryga MD , Beth Ripley MD, PhD , Cynthia S. Santillan MD , David H. Kim MD , Michael L. Steigner MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.021","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.021","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This document summarizes the relevant literature for the selection of the initial imaging in five clinical scenarios in patients with suspected or known nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). These clinical scenarios include suspected nonvariceal UGIB without endoscopy performed; endoscopically confirmed nonvariceal UGIB with clear source but treatment not possible or continued bleeding after endoscopic treatment; endoscopically confirmed nonvariceal UGIB without a confirmed source; suspected nonvariceal UGIB with negative endoscopy; and postsurgical or post-traumatic nonvariceal UGIB when endoscopy is contraindicated. The appropriateness of imaging modalities as they apply to each clinical scenario is rated as usually appropriate, may be appropriate, and usually not appropriate to assist the selection of the most appropriate imaging modality in the corresponding clinical scenarios of nonvariceal UGIB.</div><div>The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Pages S433-S447"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142564007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.019
Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging, William B. Morrison MD , Diane Deely MD , Michael G. Fox MD, MBA , Donna G. Blankenbaker MD , Julie A. Dodds MD , Cristy N. French MD , Matthew A. Frick MD , Shari T. Jawetz MD , Bharti Khurana MD , Molly Kresin DO , Nicholas Nacey MD , Charles Reitman MD , Nicholas Said MD, MBA , J. Derek Stensby MD , Eric A. Walker MD, MHA , Eric Y. Chang MD
Stress fractures, including both fatigue and insufficiency types, are frequently encountered in clinical practice as a source of pain in a variety of patients (athletes, older patients, and patients with predisposing conditions). Radiography is the imaging modality of choice for baseline diagnosis. MRI has greatly improved our ability to diagnose radiographically occult stress fractures. Nuclear medicine scintigraphy and CT may also be useful as diagnostic tools. Although fatigue and insufficiency fractures can be self-limited and go on to healing even without diagnosis, there is usually value in initiating prompt therapeutic measures as incomplete stress fractures have the potential to progress to completion, necessitating surgery. This is particularly important in the setting of stress fractures of the femoral neck. Accuracy in the identification of these injuries is also relevant because the differential diagnosis includes entities that would otherwise be treated differently (ie, metastatic disease).
The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
{"title":"ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Stress (Fatigue-Insufficiency) Fracture Including Sacrum Excluding Other Vertebrae: 2024 Update","authors":"Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging, William B. Morrison MD , Diane Deely MD , Michael G. Fox MD, MBA , Donna G. Blankenbaker MD , Julie A. Dodds MD , Cristy N. French MD , Matthew A. Frick MD , Shari T. Jawetz MD , Bharti Khurana MD , Molly Kresin DO , Nicholas Nacey MD , Charles Reitman MD , Nicholas Said MD, MBA , J. Derek Stensby MD , Eric A. Walker MD, MHA , Eric Y. Chang MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.019","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.019","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Stress fractures, including both fatigue and insufficiency types, are frequently encountered in clinical practice as a source of pain in a variety of patients (athletes, older patients, and patients with predisposing conditions). Radiography is the imaging modality of choice for baseline diagnosis. MRI has greatly improved our ability to diagnose radiographically occult stress fractures. Nuclear medicine scintigraphy and CT may also be useful as diagnostic tools. Although fatigue and insufficiency fractures can be self-limited and go on to healing even without diagnosis, there is usually value in initiating prompt therapeutic measures as incomplete stress fractures have the potential to progress to completion, necessitating surgery. This is particularly important in the setting of stress fractures of the femoral neck. Accuracy in the identification of these injuries is also relevant because the differential diagnosis includes entities that would otherwise be treated differently (ie, metastatic disease).</div><div>The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Pages S490-S503"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142564562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.003
Leena Khiati MBBS , Emily B. Ambinder MD , Kelly S. Myers MD , Eniola Oluyemi MD , Lisa A. Mullen MD
{"title":"Assessing the Utilization of Self-Scheduling for Diagnostic Mammography at a Multisite Academic Institution: A Retrospective Cohort Study","authors":"Leena Khiati MBBS , Emily B. Ambinder MD , Kelly S. Myers MD , Eniola Oluyemi MD , Lisa A. Mullen MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.003","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Pages 1774-1777"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141621878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.023
Avani Pathak BS , Arif Musa MD , Samuel C. Johnson MD , Brigitte Berryhill DO , Lisa Dillon PhD , Jarrett J. Weinberger MD , Ali Harb MD , Monte Harvill MD , Gulcin Altinok MD
{"title":"Take Your Leave: Our Recommendation for an Inclusive and Equitable Parental Leave Policy in Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Residency","authors":"Avani Pathak BS , Arif Musa MD , Samuel C. Johnson MD , Brigitte Berryhill DO , Lisa Dillon PhD , Jarrett J. Weinberger MD , Ali Harb MD , Monte Harvill MD , Gulcin Altinok MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.023","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Pages 1822-1825"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141972418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.019
Kenneth C. Wang MD, PhD , Justin R. Ryan PhD , Leonid Chepelev MD, PhD , Nicole Wake PhD , Edward P. Quigley MD, PhD , Lumarie Santiago MD , Adam Wentworth MS , Amy Alexander MS , Jonathan M. Morris MD , Dominik Fleischmann MD , David H. Ballard MD , Prashanth Ravi PhD , Jeffrey D. Hirsch MD , Gregory M. Sturgeon RDCS, MSE , Yu-Hui Huang MD, MS , Summer J. Decker PhD , Natalia von Windheim PhD , Robert S. Pugliese PharmD , Ronald V. Hidalgo MD , Pushpak Patel RT(R)(CT) , Frank J. Rybicki MD, PhD
Purpose
The aim of this study was to report data from the first 3 years of operation of the RSNA-ACR 3D Printing Registry.
Methods
Data from June 2020 to June 2023 were extracted, including demographics, indications, workflow, and user assessments. Clinical indications were stratified by 12 organ systems. Imaging modalities, printing technologies, and numbers of parts per case were assessed. Effort data were analyzed, dividing staff members into provider and nonprovider categories. The opinions of clinical users were evaluated using a Likert scale questionnaire, and estimates of procedure time saved were collected.
Results
A total of 20 sites and 2,637 cases were included, consisting of 1,863 anatomic models and 774 anatomic guides. Mean patient ages for models and guides were 42.4 ± 24.5 years and 56.3 ± 18.5 years, respectively. Cardiac models were the most common type of model (27.2%), and neurologic guides were the most common type of guide (42.4%). Material jetting, vat photopolymerization, and material extrusion were the most common printing technologies used overall (85.6% of all cases). On average, providers spent 92.4 min and nonproviders spent 335.0 min per case. Providers spent most time on consultation (33.6 min), while nonproviders focused most on segmentation (148.0 min). Confidence in treatment plans increased after using 3-D printing (P < .001). Estimated procedure time savings for 155 cases was 40.5 ± 26.1 min.
Conclusions
Three-dimensional printing is performed at health care facilities for many clinical indications. The registry provides insight into the technologies and workflows used to create anatomic models and guides, and the data show clinical benefits from 3-D printing.
目的：报告 RSNA-ACR 3D 打印注册中心运行头三年的数据：报告 RSNA-ACR 3D 打印注册中心运行头三年的数据：方法：提取 2020 年 6 月至 2023 年 6 月的数据，包括人口统计学、适应症、工作流程和用户评估。临床适应症按 12 个器官系统进行了分层。对成像方式、打印技术和每个病例的部件数量进行了评估。对工作量数据进行了分析，将工作人员分为提供者和非提供者两类。通过李克特量表问卷评估了临床用户的意见，并收集了节省的手术时间估计数：结果：共纳入了 20 个地点和 2,637 个病例，包括 1,863 个解剖模型和 774 个解剖指南。模型和导板的患者平均年龄分别为（42.4 ± 24.5）岁和（56.3 ± 18.5）岁。心脏模型是最常见的模型类型（27.2%），神经导板是最常见的导板类型（42.4%）。材料喷射、大桶光聚合和材料挤压是最常用的打印技术（占所有病例的 85.6%）。每个病例，医疗服务提供者平均花费 92.4 分钟，非医疗服务提供者平均花费 335.0 分钟。医疗服务提供者花费最多的时间是咨询（33.6 分钟），而非医疗服务提供者花费最多的时间是分割（148.0 分钟）。使用 3D 打印技术后，对治疗计划的信心增加了（p 结论：医疗机构在许多临床适应症中都使用了 3D 打印技术。登记册提供了对用于创建解剖模型和指南的技术和工作流程的深入了解，数据显示了 3D 打印带来的临床益处。
{"title":"Demographics, Utilization, Workflow, and Outcomes Based on Observational Data From the RSNA-ACR 3D Printing Registry","authors":"Kenneth C. Wang MD, PhD , Justin R. Ryan PhD , Leonid Chepelev MD, PhD , Nicole Wake PhD , Edward P. Quigley MD, PhD , Lumarie Santiago MD , Adam Wentworth MS , Amy Alexander MS , Jonathan M. Morris MD , Dominik Fleischmann MD , David H. Ballard MD , Prashanth Ravi PhD , Jeffrey D. Hirsch MD , Gregory M. Sturgeon RDCS, MSE , Yu-Hui Huang MD, MS , Summer J. Decker PhD , Natalia von Windheim PhD , Robert S. Pugliese PharmD , Ronald V. Hidalgo MD , Pushpak Patel RT(R)(CT) , Frank J. Rybicki MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.019","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.019","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The aim of this study was to report data from the first 3 years of operation of the RSNA-ACR 3D Printing Registry.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data from June 2020 to June 2023 were extracted, including demographics, indications, workflow, and user assessments. Clinical indications were stratified by 12 organ systems. Imaging modalities, printing technologies, and numbers of parts per case were assessed. Effort data were analyzed, dividing staff members into provider and nonprovider categories. The opinions of clinical users were evaluated using a Likert scale questionnaire, and estimates of procedure time saved were collected.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 20 sites and 2,637 cases were included, consisting of 1,863 anatomic models and 774 anatomic guides. Mean patient ages for models and guides were 42.4 ± 24.5 years and 56.3 ± 18.5 years, respectively. Cardiac models were the most common type of model (27.2%), and neurologic guides were the most common type of guide (42.4%). Material jetting, vat photopolymerization, and material extrusion were the most common printing technologies used overall (85.6% of all cases). On average, providers spent 92.4 min and nonproviders spent 335.0 min per case. Providers spent most time on consultation (33.6 min), while nonproviders focused most on segmentation (148.0 min). Confidence in treatment plans increased after using 3-D printing (<em>P</em> < .001). Estimated procedure time savings for 155 cases was 40.5 ± 26.1 min.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Three-dimensional printing is performed at health care facilities for many clinical indications. The registry provides insight into the technologies and workflows used to create anatomic models and guides, and the data show clinical benefits from 3-D printing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 11","pages":"Pages 1781-1791"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141908574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号