Introduction to principles of the radiological investigation of the neonate

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511978074.005

1 - Introduction to principles of the radiological investigation of the neonate

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2012

Sara B. DeMauro ,

John Richard Mernagh ,

Monica Epelman and

Edited by

Monica Epelman and

Sara B. DeMauro: Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
John Richard Mernagh: Affiliation:
McMaster University Medical Centre
Monica Epelman: Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Haresh Kirpalani: Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Haresh Kirpalani: Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Monica Epelman: Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
John Richard Mernagh: Affiliation:
McMaster University, Ontario

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The team approach to neonatal imaging

The clinical and radiological examinations are the foundation of medical investigation of the acutely ill neonate. The proper use and interpretation of radiological studies requires teamwork and clear communication between the clinicians (including the obstetricians and surgeons, as appropriate) and the radiologists. Some literature confirms that a radiologist's interpretation oft en differs from the clinician's interpretation. In a prospective study, five pediatric intensivists interpreted 460 chest x-rays (CXRs) and were matched against a “gold-standard” opinion of a pediatric radiologist. This resulted in “important” discordance in 7% of CXRs, but most of these did not lead to management changes [1]. These data can be used to support an argument that clinicians do not need interpretative assistance. Alternatively, one could say that clinicians have an unacceptable rate of incorrect interpretation. The CXR is the most frequent radiological test in intensive care units. Differences between clinician and radiologist interpretations are greater when less common forms of radiology are evaluated. We suggest that the different perspectives of the clinician and the radiologist can be viewed as symbiotic.

With the advent of digital radiology, direct face-to-face communication with the radiologist has become less common. To facilitate a coordinated approach, regular rounds between the radiologists responsible for reporting the neonatal films and the clinical team are advised.

Type: Chapter
Information: Imaging of the Newborn , pp. 1 - 6

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978074.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. G. V., Nesterova, C. A., Leftridge Jr., A. R., Natarajan, et al. Discordance in interpretation of chest radiographs between pediatric intensivists and a radiologist: impact on patient management. J Crit Care 2010; 25(2):179–83.Google Scholar

2. G., Prat, M., Lefevre, E., Nowak, et al. Impact of clinical guidelines to improve appropriateness of laboratory tests and chest radiographs. Intensive Care Med 2009; 35(6):1047–53.Google Scholar

3. A. S., Brody, D. P., Frush, W., Huda, et al. Radiation risk to children from computed tomography. Pediatrics 2007; 120(3):677–82.Google Scholar

4. H., Kirpalani, C., Nahmias. Radiation risk to children from computed tomography. Pediatrics 2008; 121(2):449–50.Google Scholar

5. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) Radiation and Your Patient: A Guide for Medical Practitioners. A Web Module Produced by Committee 3 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Available at: www.icrp.org/docs/Rad_for_GP_for_web.pdf (accessed December 12, 2007).

6. N. B., Shah, S. L., Platt. ALARA: is there a cause for alarm? Reducing radiation risks from computed tomography scanning in children. Curr Opin Pediatr 2008; 20:243–7.Google Scholar

7. M. S., Linet, K. P., Kim, P., Rajaraman. Children's exposure to diagnostic medical radiation and cancer risk: epidemiologic and dosimetric considerations. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39(Suppl. 1):S4–26.Google Scholar

8. Y., Peng, J., Li, D., Ma, et al. Use of automatic tube current modulation with a standardized noise index in young children undergoing chest computed tomography scans with 64-slice multidetector computed tomography. Acta Radiol 2009; 50:1175–81.Google Scholar

9. L. J. M., Kroft, J. J. H., Roelofs, J., Geleijns. Scan time and patient dose for thoracic imaging in neonates and small children using axial volumetric 320-detector row CT compared to helical 64-, 32-, and 16-detector row CT acquisitions. Pediatr Radiol 2010; 40:294–300.Google Scholar

10. American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2007) Guidelines of Perinatal Care, 6th Edition, Atlanta, ACOG.

11. A. M., Trinh, A. H., Schoenfeld, T. L., Levin. Scatter radiation from chest radiographs: is there a risk to infants in a typical NICU? Pediatr Radiol 2010; 40(5):704–7.Google Scholar

12. L., Loovere, E. M., Boyle, S., Blatz, et al. Quality improvement in radiography in a neonatal intensive care unit. Can Assoc Radiol J 2008; 59(4):197–202.Google Scholar

13. R., Smith-Bindman. Is computed tomography safe? N Engl J Med 2010; 363(1):1–4.Google Scholar

14. M. L., Wald. The frequent flier and radiation risk. The New York Times, Tuesday, June 12, 2001, pages F1 and F8.

15. G., Hejblum, L., Chalumeau-Lemoine, V., Ioos, et al. Comparison of routine and on-demand prescription of chest radiographs in mechanically ventilated adults: a multicentre, cluster-randomised, two-period crossover study. Lancet 2009; 374(9702):1687–93.Google Scholar

16. Y., Oba, T., Zaza. Abandoning daily routine chest radiography in the intensive care unit: meta-analysis. Radiology 2010; 255(2):386–95.Google Scholar

17. A., Greenough, G., Dimitriou, B. R., Alvares, et al. Routine daily chest radiographs in ventilated, very low birth weight infants. Eur J Pediatr 2001; 160(3):147–9.Google Scholar

18. M., Epelman, A., Daneman, O. M., Navarro, et al. Necrotizing enterocolitis: review of state-of-the-art imaging findings with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2007; 27(2):285–305.Google Scholar

19. D. I., Bulas. What is the evidence based role of US in evaluating the fetus? Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39(Suppl. 2):S205–8.Google Scholar

20. S., Sigaut, A., Skhiri, I., Stany, et al. Ultrasound guided internal jugular vein access in children and infant: a meta-analysis of published studies. Paediatr Anaesth 2009; 19(12):1199–206.Google Scholar

21. C. R., Grebenik, A., Boyce, M. E., Sinclair, et al. NICE guidelines for central venous catheterization in children. Is the evidence base sufficient? Br J Anaesth 2004; 92(6):827–30.Google Scholar

22. L. J., Woodward, P. J., Anderson, N. C., Austin, et al. Neonatal MRI to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:685–94.Google Scholar

23. L. A., Stokowski. Ensuring safety for infants undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Adv Neonatal Care 2005; 5:14–27.Google Scholar

24. D. T., Teachey. Neonatal MRI and neurodevelopmental outcomes [letter]. N Engl J Med 2006; 355(22):2373–4.Google Scholar

25. R., Wakeford. Childhood leukaemia following medical diagnostic exposure to ionizing radiation in utero or aft er birth. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 132(2):166–74.Google Scholar

26. G., Mari, F., Hanif. Fetal Doppler: umbilical artery, middle cerebral artery, and venous system. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32:253–7.Google Scholar

27. J. A., Estroff. The growing role of MR imaging in the fetus. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39(Suppl. 2):S209–10.Google Scholar