ZEN AND THE ART OF RADIOGRAPHY REPORTING
SO YOU WANT TO READ MSK RADIOGRAPHY!!
Donna Magid MD, M.Ed
My opinions. Different faculty read differently, as junior residents rapidly learn. Since I will often be your 1st yr. checker on MSK Rads, this is how I’d suggest you approach reports, language and specific areas.
Please read the Elective/MSK handouts on Teamrads.com for a beginner’s intro/entrance point to many common MSK radiography studies (fxs, ankle, knee, …). The MSK Rads Curriculum will offer expanded study options once you dive in.
REPORT FORMAT:. Not negotiable. A.I. now scans reports for billing and needs to find certain words and colons. Therefore:
Indication: NO abbreviations! If clinician wrote "ORIF", "CRPP", "BBFF", etc either spell it out or substitute other words
Exam: (list # views)
Comparison: Date (or "None"). Sometimes reformatted CT, MR. UGI, provides limited comparison eg L spine.
Findings: Everything, from important/major to the trivia. LIMITATIONS ('limited exam C7, T-1, odontoid") stated FIRST.
Impression: Headlines--significant/relevant info only. 'Advise F/U if clinically indicated' MUSTbe stated.
Indication/HX: Spelunk spelunk spelunk! The oft-given ‘pain’ or ‘R/O” are useless--and we cannot bill. EPIC makes it slightly easier to distinguish EMed or Ortho notes from, say, Ophthal or Phlebotomy; so open and explore—and add to Indications. “Pain 18 months, no hx of trauma”, ‘Stepped on glass last night’, ‘Marathoner, 2 weeks anterior tib pain”, “Ehlers Danlos, chronic sprains”, “Slipped off curb in high heels”—all make your reading more targeted, more accurate, and improve your clinician/radiologist relations. If no old images in Hopkins computer, say so. Technologists getting great at adding history, be sure to check for their comments in box where tech name stated. And thank them occasionally!.
Possibly serious Incidental findings (lung nodules, neoplasm, foreign matter...) should be pursued vigorously to see if previously seen/documented/changed (eg-- seen on today's shoulder. Look not only for older shoulders, for example, but frontal C spines, Chest, CT, upper GI, Scoliosis-- anything that may ao say the 'unchanged for more than 2 years").
Please add "IMPRESSION: (Side) (Body part)(very brief dx/recap), see above " to EVERY report; without the specific summary, we do not get paid. Most MSK Radiography reports succinct enough not to need detailed reiteration.
a) of CONTIGUOUS/RELATED PARTS: eg ‘wrist and hand’; ‘scoli and L spine’-- they can be reported on one screen but MUST be physically divided on page, ie distinguished as TWO exams (eg “new paragraph Left Hand 2 views…. New paragraph Left wrist 3 views…” (or we don't collect billing for both studies).
Sometimes one needs to refer to another study to get complete 3-view exam, eg, "Left wrist 2 views, lateral from L hand below...xxxxxxxxx….”.
Or the views greatly overlap in which case : “L hand....as (wrist) above, no signif additional abnl'ty fingers”
b) Multiple exams UNRELATED TO EACH OTHER (eg ‘wrist and ankle”; “scoli and L knee”—ditto, PREFER on one report(clinician doesn’t want to open 3 reports to check results; nor does faculty checker wish to open 3 reports to check you) BUT as separate clearly labelled paragraphs.
"IF CLINICALLY INDICATED FURTHER F/U COULD BE OBTAINED" ; or "If clin ind...CONED AND CENTERED EXAM OF ANY AREA OF INTEREST could be obtained..." are MANDATORY phrases for MSK Radiography/working with me, and IMHO should be mandatory, period..
BILATERAL (Knees, Hands, Feet, …): Read on ONE report (ie link 2 accessions, if applicable, before opening), TWO paragraphs: "R hand.... new paragraph Left hand...")
KNEES are different: DO NOT split “R knee” and “L knee”, or "R knee" and "Bilateral knees" especially—often pops up as ‘2 studies’ but read as one, with demarcations line changes; one view shows BOTH and other views show just one knee--confusing. ("R knee 4 views L knee two views: R .....the incompletely seen L ....")
BILATERAL reading tip: Newest images show up on L screen. Drag it also to the R screen. Then scroll images so same view of L and R are on L and R screens respectively--( ie L frontal/R frontal, L lateral/R lateral, etc) allows easier compare/contrast of R/L hands, wrists, feet, ankles since findings often similar/related.When any bilateral findings very similar, one can (esp in Impression) say 'Nearly-symmetric bilateral hands, with oseopenia, trapezium-thumb MC osteoarthrosis, no evidence of subluxations, erosions, of soft tissue calcifications." Don't force the clinician to read 2 identical paragraphs, one for R and one for L.
PHRASING: CAVEATS, PREFERENCES, SUGGESTIONS
Anatomic position reference points do not change with position—ie ‘anterior’, ‘medial’, ‘distal’, etc remain uniform even if the appendage in question is amputated and hung from the ceiling. Remember your Gross Anatomy cadaver: supine, hands supinated, feet plantigrade. Vague descriptors such as ‘near’, ‘next to’, behind’, above’—meaningless and DANGEROUS.
Magid 10 Commandments (TeamRads.com) include “LEND NO FOOTHOLD TO LAWYERS” and “BE LITERAL/VERITABLE WITNESSES”. Choose words carefully and precisely; never ‘assume’ anything unseen or poorly seen can be guesstimated.
Report should be structured like newspaper front page: HEADLINES (“Unchanged from last exam…”, “Limited exam…”, “Subtle fracture scaphoid …”, “Cannot r/o lytic lesion proximal diaphyseal…”, followed other important/relevant/focused info, then incidental or miscellaneous detail (“Again seen is bone island…’Unchanged surgical clips…”;”Battery pack again superimposes iliac wing…”).
Always start with LIMITATIONS of images/study :
“C7, T1 cut off; no odontoid view; otherwise unremarkable”, “Limited exam proximal T spine on lateral due to superimposition”, “In cast markedly limiting detail”, “Superimposed surgical material limits detail”, “Left hand, one view only”, “Fluoroscopy, limited exam”, “Visualized portions grossly unremarkable…” "Alignment maintained between flex/ex, visualized levels..." alerts clinicians that even if what is seen is unremarkable, we didn’t see it all
Whether exam limited or just unremarkable (apparently negative), advising F/U if physical findings, mechanism of injury, other comorbidities, soft tissue clues, etc. (ie all those things the clinician knows but the radiologist cannot) is pragmatic both clinically and medically-legally. Many of our trauma images are initially negative but become more definitely radiographically abnormal 10-14 days later.
“Habitus (or exposure, or rotation, or superimposed foreign matter, or cast, or….) limits detail, no definite fracture but F/U coned to any area of interest could be obtained if clinically indicated*”
*If advising F/U, add “If clinically indicated”— otherwise some clinicians have said they feel they are legally obligated to get more studies, even if NOT warranted in their judgment (and they do have the pt. at hand—we don’t).
Radiographs are 2D representations of a 3D structure. Unless there are at least 2 orthogonal (right angles) views, one can only say that “AA is SUPERIMPOSING BB”, not ‘in BB”; or one can say there is “apparent…”. “One View Is No View”.
Don’t express excessive certainty when one cannot be sure— “Apparent…”, “Incompletely seen…”, “Grossly unremarkable on this limited exam…” , “due to only one view…”, or “poorly seen due to habitus”… , or” incompletely seen at edge of image” are important modifiers.
“Normal” is a word I use far less than most. If the pt. were truly normal, their clinician might not be requesting imaging. “Unremarkable”, "No significant abnormality visualized areas", or ‘Radiographically unremarkable” are the best substitute. “No definite abnormality visualized portions”, “No significant radiographic abnormality” all leave room for nasty future surprises, initially radiographically invisible findings, or currently incomplete/limited exams. .
Also with fractures, “Advise F/U 10-14 days following trauma or onset of sx if clinically indicated”—F/U sooner is NOT a true R/O for subtle fxs. It’s the osteocytes—they need 10-14 days to make a radiographically visible change removing debris to make a fracture line ‘appear’ (osteoclasts) and/or to lay down and start calcifying enough matrix to show healing/reactive change (ostepblasts).
In MSK one cannot use the word stable to mean 'unchanged'; it more commonly implies biomechanical or physical stability, which is not an imaging determination. If a finding, alignment, hardware, whatever are unchanged from last exam say so but NOT as 'Stable alignment proximal tibial fracture..."
Our referring clinicians also include rheumatologists, plastic surgeons, internists, nurse practicioners, ambulatory care , Comp Clinic, ob-gyn...our job is to describe and report with nonambiguous comprehensible clarity. Fancy Latin names for many normal or anatomic variants are counter-productive if the image was requested by non-Orthopaedists. Describe it as 'normal variant accessory ossicle", not 'os hamuli proprium". Prefacing phrases like 'ulna minus' with 'anatomic variant..." is also helpful if you are not sure the referring clinician is a hand specialist.
SPECIFIC BONES AND JOINTS (see specific Joint handouts)
BILAT KNEES may show as 2 acc.#s/studies or as ‘Bilat knees” under one acc.#. If the former DO NOT SPLIT—open both acc.#s on same report. Even if labelled “R. knee” L. Knee”, each acc. # is likely to include BOTH knees—making it impossible to produce meaningful read if you only decide to open/read one at time.
Knees if quite similar can be read together: eg “Early medial compartment narrowing bilaterally left slightly > right with decreasing valgus; left joint effusion, no R lateral. IMPRESSION: approximately symmetric osteoarthrosis L>R”
Knees if quite different can be split: “R knee arthroplasty unremarkable and unchanged….Left knee medial tibial plateau fracture unchanged except for progression of healing, since last exam…”
SCOLIOSIS Intro is on TeamRads.com, under Elective/MSK handouts. COUNT pairs of ribs and ascertain number of lumbar vertebral bodies—many of our pts. anomalous; hypoplastic 12th ribs, lumbosacral segmentation anomalies common (Don’t miss the PSEUDARTHROSES!); and many lawsuits drifting around based on fact that radiography/CT/MR reports over time may each call the same lumbar abnormal level by different numbers due to FOV differences.
Currently (initiated Fall 2017) we are NOT dictating actual measurements (insurance issue: if our measurements are not precisely matched to Orthopaedics measurements insurance may deny patient care payment; and since there is about +/- 5 degrees standard deviation of two reviewers measuring from same landmarks, we are currently eyeballing: "No definite change in right thoracolumbar scoli compared to 6/2017, see clinician measurements".
When one *is* measuring: Dictate measurements “From superior endplate of …to inferior endplate of …”
Curves are named ‘right/dextro’ or ‘left’ by direction of shift from midline ie apex of curve; need not add “convex to…” unless you are unclear abt. Convention.
Describe if in brace or out; if supine or sitting; esp if comparing to older exam which may be different. In-brace can’t be compared to out-of-brace; it’s apples-to-oranges.
Comparisons to older images, or to changes when pt. flexes laterally to L or R, must be made from same endplates, eg ‘Using the same landmarks, on previous exam Oct. 19 2015 these curves measured XX and YY respectively…”
Measure-remeasure SD is about +/- 5 degrees between 2 observers using same landmarks, 3 degrees if same observer. Less than 5 degree change therefore not significant. IF HOWEVER there is ~5 degree increase since last exam, look for older exams to see if curve is sneaking up 5 degrees each time, therefore avoiding the ‘increasing’ label—“L. 31 degree curve superior endplate of X through inferior endplate of Y. On last exam Oct 10, 2015 using same landmarks, this measured 27 degrees; but on older exam May 3 2014 this measured 16 degrees, suggesting longitudinal increase”
FRACTURES Read, memorize, and use Fractures 101 handout on TeamRads.com, under Elective/MSK handouts. Orthopaedic convention (describe distal relative to proximal, etc) has very precise and well-described descriptors.
HANDS, WRIST: NAME, do not NUMBER digits, phalanges, MCs.
“Thumb Index Long (NOT ‘middle”), Ring, Small” phalanx or MC;
“prox-middle-distal” Phalanges, not “1st-2nd…”
LONG BONE images (humerus, forearm, tib fib) : start with ‘Limited exam wrist and elbos” (“Joint above/below”) , because beam angle/penumbra is giving you subtle obliques, not true AP/Lat, at edges of such images. (ie magnifying to see ends WILL NOT give same accuracy as actual CONED AND CENTERED view over joints) .
HIPS, PELVIS Position:obturator foramina perfectly symmetric or pelvis rotated. Trochanters thrown off neck, which should project as biconcave femoral neck or LIMITED EXAM. "Hip" means proximal femur and acetabulum; be precise localizing findings. See TeamRads.
FEET mention if weight-bearing or non-weight-bearing, changes the longitudinal arch and axes of the talus and calcaneus. Don’t get too involved trying to dx. pes planus/cavus. Check TeamRads hand out.
SPINE, Flexion/extension C, T or L spine: DID alignment change and DID PT ACTUALLY MOVE?? "Alignment maintained between F/E but virtually no range of motion..." "...but limited motion in extension, adequate in extension...", "...alignment maintained, with unremarkable range of motion between F/E". Did you count vertebral bodies? Is there anomaly/pseudarthrosis at the lumbosacral junction?
Donna Magid MD, M.Ed 2018