Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 229–236 | Cite as

Inter-radiologist agreement for CT scoring of pediatric splenic injuries and effect on an established clinical practice guideline

  • Jessica R. LeschiedEmail author
  • Michael B. Mazza
  • Matthew S. Davenport
  • Suzanne T. Chong
  • Ethan A. Smith
  • Carrie N. Hoff
  • Maria F. Ladino-Torres
  • Shokoufeh Khalatbari
  • Peter F. Ehrlich
  • Jonathan R. Dillman
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) advocates for the use of a clinical practice guideline to direct management of hemodynamically stable pediatric spleen injuries. The clinical practice guideline is based on the CT score of the spleen injury according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) CT scoring system.

Objective

To determine the potential effect of radiologist agreement for CT scoring of pediatric spleen injuries on an established APSA clinical practice guideline.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed blunt splenic injuries occurring in children from January 2007 to January 2012 at a single level 1 trauma center (n = 90). Abdominal CT exams performed at clinical presentation were reviewed by four radiologists who documented the following: (1) splenic injury grade (AAST system), (2) arterial extravasation and (3) pseudoaneurysm. Inter-rater agreement for AAST injury grade was assessed using the multi-rater Fleiss kappa and Kendall coefficient of concordance. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using weighted (AAST injury grade) or prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted (binary measures) kappa statistics; 95% confidence intervals were calculated. We evaluated the hypothetical effect of radiologist disagreement on an established APSA clinical practice guideline.

Results

Inter-rater agreement was good for absolute AAST injury grade (kappa: 0.64 [0.59–0.69]) and excellent for relative AAST injury grade (Kendall w: 0.90). All radiologists agreed on the AAST grade in 52% of cases. Based on an established clinical practice guideline, radiologist disagreement could have changed the decision for intensive care management in 11% (10/90) of children, changed the length of hospital stay in 44% (40/90), and changed the time to return to normal activity in 44% (40/90).

Conclusion

Radiologist agreement when assigning splenic AAST injury grades is less than perfect, and disagreements have the potential to change management in a substantial number of pediatric patients.

Keywords

Children Clinical practice guidelines Computed tomography Injury score Spleen Trauma 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standard

Conflicts of interest

Dr. M. Davenport has book contracts with Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, and Elsevier.

References

  1. 1.
    Stylianos S (2000) Evidence-based guidelines for resource utilization in children with isolated spleen or liver injury. The APSA Trauma Committee. J Pediatr Surg 35:164–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moore EE, Cogbill TH, Jurkovich GJ et al (1995) Organ injury scaling: spleen and liver (1994 revision). J Trauma 38:323–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stylianos S (2002) Compliance with evidence-based guidelines in children with isolated spleen or liver injury: a prospective study. J Pediatr Surg 37:453–456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leinwand MJ, Atkinson CC, Mooney DP (2004) Application of the APSA evidence-based guidelines for isolated liver or spleen injuries: a single institution experience. J Pediatr Surg 39:487–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gutierrez IM, Zurakowski D, Chen Q et al (2013) Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) reduce costs in the management of isolated splenic injuries at pediatric trauma centers. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398:313–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sutyak JP, Chiu WC, D’Amelio LF et al (1995) Computed tomography is inaccurate in estimating the severity of adult splenic injury. J Trauma 39:514–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore EE, Shackford SR, Pachter HL et al (1989) Organ injury scaling: spleen, liver, and kidney. J Trauma 29:1664–1666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohn JS, Clark DE, Isler RJ et al (1994) Is computed tomographic grading of splenic injury useful in the nonsurgical management of blunt trauma? J Trauma 36:385–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nellensteijn DR, ten Duis HJ, Oldenziel J et al (2009) Only moderate intra- and inter-observer agreement between radiologists and surgeons when grading blunt paediatric hepatic injury on CT scan. Eur J Pediatr Surg 19:392–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coburn MC, Pfeifer J, DeLuca FG (1995) Nonoperative management of splenic and hepatic trauma in the multiply injured pediatric and adolescent patient. Arch Surg 130:332–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011) Size specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Report of the AAPM Task Group 204. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_204.pdf. Accessed 03 Sept 2015
  12. 12.
    Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB (1993) Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol 46:423–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR (1990) High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43:551–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV (1990) High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43:543–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dodgion CM, Gosain A, Rogers A et al (2014) National trends in pediatric blunt spleen and liver injury management and potential benefits of an abbreviated bed rest protocol. J Pediatr Surg 49:1004–1008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marmery H, Shanmuganathan K, Alexander MT et al (2007) Optimization of selection for nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury: comparison of MDCT grading systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1421–1427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bond SJ, Eichelberger MR, Gotschall CS et al (1996) Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic and splenic injury in children. Ann Surg 223:286–289CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lutz N, Mahboubi S, Nance ML et al (2004) The significance of contrast blush on computed tomography in children with splenic injuries. J Pediatr Surg 39:491–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stylianos S, Egorova N, Guice KS et al (2006) Variation in treatment of pediatric spleen injury at trauma centers versus nontrauma centers: a call for dissemination of American Pediatric Surgical Association benchmarks and guidelines. J Am Coll Surg 202:247–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Federle MP, Courcoulas AP, Powell M et al (1998) Blunt splenic injury in adults: clinical and CT criteria for management, with emphasis on active extravasation. Radiology 206:137–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schurr MJ, Fabian TC, Gavant M et al (1995) Management of blunt splenic trauma: computed tomographic contrast blush predicts failure of nonoperative management. J Trauma 39:507–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barquist ES, Pizano LR, Feuer W et al (2004) Inter- and intra-rater reliability in computed axial tomographic grading of splenic injury: why so many grading scales? J Trauma 56:334–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Homann G, Toschke C, Gassmann P et al (2014) Accuracy of the AAST organ injury scale for CT evaluation of traumatic liver and spleen injuries. Chin J Traumatol 17:25–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boscak AR, Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE et al (2013) Optimizing trauma multidetector CT protocol for blunt splenic injury: need for arterial and portal venous phase scans. Radiology 268:79–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim JH, Kim MJ, Kim HY et al (2014) Radiation dose reduction and image quality in pediatric abdominal CT with kVp and mAs modulation and an iterative reconstruction technique. Clin Imaging 38:710–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica R. Leschied
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael B. Mazza
    • 2
  • Matthew S. Davenport
    • 3
  • Suzanne T. Chong
    • 2
  • Ethan A. Smith
    • 1
  • Carrie N. Hoff
    • 2
  • Maria F. Ladino-Torres
    • 1
  • Shokoufeh Khalatbari
    • 4
  • Peter F. Ehrlich
    • 5
  • Jonathan R. Dillman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Section of Pediatric Radiology, C.S. Mott Children’s HospitalUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Division of Emergency Radiology, C.S. Mott Children’s HospitalUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Division of Abdominal Imaging, C.S. Mott Children’s HospitalUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Department of Surgery, Section of Pediatric Surgery, C.S. Mott Children’s HospitalUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations