False Perpetuations: Ovarian Torsion, Doppler Ultrasound, and CT

Contrast-enhanced CT (top) and gray-scale US (bottom) in the same patient, both modalities demonstrating right ovarian torsion. Note the enlarged and heterogenous right ovary, peripheral follicles, and ascites

• False Perpetuation: After a normal CT for lower abdominal or pelvic pain, an ultrasound with color Doppler is necessary to "rule out ovarian torsion"

• Ovarian/adnexal torsion is caused by complete or partial rotation of the ovarian pedicle on its long axis. This results in lymphatic and venous congestion, inturn limiting arterial inflow
• Torsion of both the ovary and fallopian tube occurs more often than that of either structure alone
• Occurs more frequently on the right

• Findings on Ultrasound
• Enlarged ovary
• Eccentric mass (usually a cyst) serving as a lead point
• Round/'full' ovary with a central 'ground glass' appeaerance
• Peripheral follicles
• The presence of (or decrease in) arterial/venous flow predicts a better outcome
• The absense of ovarian flow suggests necrosis
• Even if there is ovarian flow on Doppler imaging, there can still be torsion
• One study (J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20:1083-1089) evaulated the use of Doppler in pathologic proven cases of ovarian/adnexal torsion and found:
• No arterial or venous flow in 40% of cases
• No venous flow, decreased arterial flow in 7% cases
• No arterial flow, decreased venous flow in 33% cases
• Decreased arterial and venous flow in 13% cases
• Normal arterial and venous flow in 7% cases
• A meta-analysis (Eur J Pediatr Surg 2015; 25:82-86) looked at different modalities in diagnosing ovarian torsion in pediatric patients. Regarding morphologic and Doppler criteria on ultrasound for the diagnosis of ovarian torsion, this study found:
• Morphologic features: 92% sensitive and 96% specific
• Some of the morphologic features reviewed:
• Enlarged heterogenous ovary (compared to contralateral normal ovary)
• Ovarian volume 12x larger than contralateral volume, or 75 mL absolute ovarian volume
• Ovarian diameter 2.3x larger than contralteral diameter
• Multiple peripheral cortical follicles with transudative fluid
• Whirlpool-sign
• Cystic mass, particularly > 5cm in diameter
• Doppler: 55% sensitive and 87% specific
• Thus, the diagnosis of ovarian torsion is made or excluded based on grayscale appearance, not the Doppler findings

• Regarding CT and ovarian torsion
• One study (Abdom Imaging 2015; 40:3206-3213) retrospectively evaluated the utility of Doppler ultrasound in the assessment of ovarian torsion following a negative contrast-enhanced CT (the ultrasound and CT were performed within a 24 hour period) found:
• Of the 48 cases with ovarian enlargement (defined as greater than 5 cm), 11 had torsion
• Of the 235 cases without ovarian enlargment, 0 had torsion
• Other CT findings assessed:
• Presense of free fluid
• Uterine deviation
• Fallopian tube thickening
• Smooth wall thickening of a cystic mass
• Ovarian fat stranding
• Twisted Pedicle
• Abnormal ovarian enhancement
• The most common ultrasound finding associated with ovarian torsion was ovarian enlargement (either due to the enlarged ovary itself or a mass functioning as a lead point)
• A completely negative CT was never associated with a Doppler ultrasound suspicious for ovarian torsion (negative predictive value of 100%)
• There is no utility in the addition of a Doppler Ultrasound (specifically for the evaluation of ovarian torsion) following a negative contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis
• Ovarian size should be used as a dominant feature in the exclusion of ovarian torsion on both CT and US

*This blog was inspired by and based on a workshop given at the Society of Abdominal Radiology 2018 annual meeting by Dr. Maitray D. Patel of Mayo Clinic Arizona

Nerve Root(s)

In season 3, episode 18 of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Dr. Bashir has to deal with some deep-seated personal issues. One of these is the fact that he graduated second in his medical school class because he mistook a "pre-ganglionic fiber for a post-ganglionic nerve." Spoiler alert: He did it on purpose because he didn't want to deal with the pressure of being first.

Dr. Bashir is not alone. I see this lead to 2 errors every day in our trainees. The clinical implication is zero, because the referring physicians also don't make this distinction (two wrongs do make a right, apparently).

First, take a look at the image below:



Note that there are 2 nerve roots (dorsal and ventral) on each side (left and right). When you say a lumbar disc compresses a nerve root in the central spinal canal, you need to add an "s," because these dorsal and ventral nerve roots travels down together in the cauda equina. Next time you look at an axial T2-WI of the lumbar spine, see if you can see two distinct nerve roots on either side.

Second, note that once we're post-ganglionic, we're dealing with a nerve, not a root. So, if you're talking about a nerve root outside the foramen, you're about as anatomically correct as a Ken doll.


The same goes for the "nerve roots" of the brachial plexus and the famous Randy Travis Drinks Cold Beer mnemonic for the brachial plexus anatomy (sorry, Randy). All is not lost. Just replace Randy Travis with Nikola Tesla.

Reference

• Basic anatomy that everyone ignores.

False Perpetuations: Main Portal Vein Size and Portal Hypertension

Perpetuation: A main portal vein (MPV) diameter >13 mm is "consistent with portal hypertension" (pHTN)

This cutoff of 13 mm is based on weak literature (mainly from the 1980's), some of which did not include comparison values of normal patients

• One comparative study using ultrasound found (Radiology 1982; 142: 167-172):
• In 79 patients with pHTN
• 36 had a MPV diameter of <13 mm 
• 33 had a MPV diameter >/= 13 mm
• The MPV was not visualized in 10 patients
• In the 45 control patients
• The MPV diameter was < 13 mm in 41 cases
• The MPV was not visualized in 4 patients. 

More recent studies have found that there is no significant difference in MPV diameters when comparing patients without cirrhosis to patients with cirrhosis, and the normal MPV diameter is significantly larger than the 13 mm cutoff

• A study (Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 16:147-155) from King's College using ultrasound (49 controls and 14 cirrhotics) found: 
• the average MPV diameters were 9.6 cm and 10.8 cm in patients without and with cirrhosis, respectively.
• A second study (JCAT 2008; 32: 198-203) from UCSF using CT (59 controls and 67 cirrhotics) found:
• The average MPV diameters were 14.5 cm and 14.8 cm in patients without and with cirrhosis, respectively.
• Using CT, the MPVs in healthy renal donor patients were measured before and after the administration of intravenous contrast, and in the axial and coronal planes (Abdom Radiol 2016; 41:1931-1936). This study found:
• The average MPV diameter was 15.5 +/- 1.9 mm
• This value was significantly different than 13 mm
• Post-contrast MPVs were 0.56 mm larger compared to non-contrast
• A positive correlation between BMI and height versus MPV diameter

In fact, the MPV size can be reduced in portal hypertension and has been described as a sign of hepatofugal MPV flow (AJR 2003; 181: 1629-1633). This study found:

• A MPV diameter of less than 1 cm is a highly sensitive (but not very specific) for MPV flow reversal in patients with cirrhosis

M.D. = Makes Decisions (unless you're a radiologist)

#
1	This is a cat.	This is a hemangioma.
2	This is most likely a cat.	This is most likely a hemangioma
3	This is consistent with a cat.	This is consistent with a hemangioma.
4	This is most likely a cat, but get a follow-up picture to make sure it wasn't a baby tiger all along.	This is most likely a hemangioma. Recommend follow-up to document stability.
5	This is most likely consistent with a cat.	This is most likely consistent with a hemangioma.
6	This is likely a cat, but can't exclude a tiger hiding behind it way in the distance.	This is likely a hemangioma, but can't exclude malignancy, sarcoid, etc.
7	This is likely a cat. Why don't you take a look for yourself and stop bothering me?	This is likely a hemangioma. Recommend clinical correlation.
8	This is likely a cat, but get a saliva sample and send it in for genetic analysis. Better yet, kill the cat and dissect it.	This is likely a hemangioma. Recommend biopsy. Open biopsy may be required.

In the real world (with the cat), anything other than statement #1 will get you laughed at. In radiology, statement #1 is rare. Instead we teach our residents and fellows, by our own weak examples, to be as non-declarative as possible.

Statements #2 and #3 are as declarative as most radiologists get. "I said most likely. What more do you want from me?!"

Statement #4 just passes the buck to the next radiologist.

Statement #5 combines 2 mild hedge words to produce one super-hedgy sentence.

Statement #6 is the reason Bayes rolls in his grave every time a radiologist signs a report.

Statement #7 is basically saying, "Thanks for the money suckers! This report was useless." We have access to so much patient data these days that it baffles me to see this in reports. Of course, this doesn't apply to cases where we're reading in isolation and when the only history we get from referrings is "pain," or some random ICD code. This negligent absence of data in a requisition borders on (is?) malpractice. I've seen it in imaging referrals my family members get from their doctors and it aggravates me to no end.

Statement #8, I don't even... For a cat/hemangioma?

Look, sometimes we have to hedge. Sometimes we are no better than Plato's cave captives, squinting at shadows with no idea of what's behind us. We know that two or more widely disparate entities can have identical imaging features. But when you know something can only be one thing, just say so. Save the patient some anxiety. And, save the rest of us some money by reducing unnecessary imaging.

What are some of your favorite radiology hedges?