Incidental findings detected on emergency abdominal CT scans: a 1-year review
- 411 Downloads
In recent years, there has been a substantial rise in the use of computed tomography (CT) in the emergency medicine setting. Accordingly, with increased CT usage there has been an upsurge in incidental pathology detection.
A retrospective review of all emergency CT abdominal scans performed at a university teaching hospital was examined. The frequency of incidental findings, their clinical significance and workload effect for the radiology department was assessed.
1155 patients had an emergency abdominal CT scan of which 700 had incidental findings detected. Of the incidental findings, 143 were deemed indeterminate requiring urgent investigations. Twenty-four occult neoplasms were confirmed subsequently. Additionally, 259 patients were recommended for additional diagnostics. The cumulative effect of the initial emergency abdominal CT was 15,015 relative value units (RVU). Subsequent imaging of incidental findings resulted in another 1674 RVU workload for radiology.
Incidental findings cause considerable debate and concern over which patients require significant follow-up, investigations, and/or surveillance. This exerts significant pressures on sub-specialties for their expert input, with increased workload and implications on healthcare service provision.
KeywordsEmergency medicine Surgical care Acute surgical management Computed tomography Incidental findings
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 1.IMV (2012) CT market summary report IMID. Des Plaines: IMVGoogle Scholar
- 10.Fleming M, Knox M, Kennedy MJ, Johnston C (2013) Incidental detection of colorectal malignancies using FDG PET-CT. Irish Med J 106(5):151–153Google Scholar
- 13.Pitman A, Jones DN, Stuart D, et al. (2009) The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) relative value unit workload model, its limitations and the evolution to a safety, quality and performance framework. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 53(5):450–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar