• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 19.04.24

Search results


May 2013
G. Yaniv, O. Mozes, G. Greenberg, M. Bakon and C. Hoffmann
 Background: Misinterpretation of head computerized tomographic (CT) scans by radiology residents in the emergency department (ED) can result in delayed and even erroneous radiology diagnosis. Better knowledge of pitfalls and environmental factors may decrease the occurrence of these errors.

Objectives: To evaluate common misinterpretations of head CT scans by radiology residents in a level I trauma center ED.

Methods: We studied 960 head CT scans of patients admitted to our ED from January 2010 to May 2011. They were reviewed separately by two senior neuroradiologists and graded as being unimportant (score of 1), important but not requiring emergent treatment (score of 2), and important requiring urgent treatment (score of 3). We recorded the time of day the examination was performed, the year of residency, the site, subsite and side of the lesion, the pathology, the anatomical mistake, false-positive findings, and the attending neuroradiologists' score.

Results: A total of 955 examinations were interpreted of which 398 had misinterpreted findings that were entered into the database, with the possibility of multiple errors per examination. The overall misinterpretation rate was 41%. The most commonly missed pathologies were chronic infarcts, hypodense lesions, and mucosal thickening in the paranasal sinuses. The most common sites for misdiagnosis were brain lobes, sinuses and deep brain structures. The highest percentage of misinterpretation occurred between 14:30 and 20:00, and the lowest between 00:00 and 08:00 (P < 0.05). The overall percentage of errors involving pathologies with a score of 3 by at least one of the neuroradiologists was 4.7%. Third-year residents had an overall higher error rate and first-year residents had significantly more false-positive misinterpretations compared to the other residents.

Conclusions: The percentage of errors made by our residents in cases that required urgent treatment was comparable to the published data. We believe that the intense workload of radiology residents contributes to their misinterpretation of head CT findings.

 

February 2013
O. Halshtok Neiman, S. Sadetzki, A. Chetrit, S. Raskin, G. Yaniv and C. Hoffmann
 Background: MRI differentiation between metastases and high grade gliomas is a challenging task. Contrast enhancement and size of edema do not provide clear-cut differentiators. The differences in the properties of the peritumoral edema between these tumor types may be exploited to distinguish between them, using MRI perfusion sequences, which are capable of imaging edema in the clinical setting and may be a reliable method to make this differentiation.

Objectives: To assess the ability of perfusion-weighted imaging to differentiate between high grade gliomas and brain metastases.

Methods: During 5 months, 21 patients (age 40–85, median age 61, 16 males and 5 females) with either glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) or metastasis (pathology proven), underwent MRI for assessment of the tumor prior to surgery. Most of the scans were done at 3 Tesla. The scans included perfusion-weighted imaging sequences. Perfusion in the tumor, in the peritumoral edema and in normal tissue were assessed using Functool® software. The ratios of tumor perfusion and peritumoral edema perfusion to normal tissue perfusion were calculated and compared.

Results: Bleeding artifact precluded perfusion assessment in four patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the tumor perfusion ratios of high grade gliomas and those of metastases. The edema perfusion ratios were higher in GBM than in metastases (P = 0.007).

Conclusions: Perfusion-weighted imaging of peritumoral edema can help to differentiate between GBM and metastases.

August 2012
July 2012
G. Yahalom, A. Yagoda, C. Hoffmann, O. Dollberg and N. Gadoth
August 2011
D. Rosin, A. Lebedyev, D. Urban, D. Aderka, O. Zmora, M. Khaikin, A. Hoffman, M. Shabtai and A. Ayalon

Background: The treatment of rectal cancer has changed significantly over the last few decades. Advanced surgical techniques have led to an increase in the rate of sphincter-preserving operations, even for low rectal tumors. This was facilitated by preoperative oncologic treatment and the use of chemoradiation to downstage the tumor before resection. The introduction of total mesorectal excision further improved the oncologic outcome and became the standard of care. The use of laparoscopy for rectal resection is the most recent addition to this series of improvements, but in contrast to the use of laparoscopy in colon cancer its role is not yet well defined.

Objectives: To present our experience with laparoscopic surgery for upper and lower rectal tumors.

Methods: A database was used to prospectively collect all data on laparoscopic rectal surgery in our department since we started performing these procedures in 1997. Follow-up data were collected from outpatient clinic visits, oncology files and telephone interviews. Updated survival data were retrieved from the national census.

Results: Of 750 laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed over a 13 year period, 67 were for rectal cancer. Of these, 29 were resections for tumors in the upper rectum (1115 cm from the anal verge) and 38 for tumors at 10 cm or below. Surgery was performed in 24 patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. There were 54 sphincter-preserving operations and 13 abdominoperineal resections. The mean operative time was 283 minutes. Conversion to an open procedure was required in 22% of the cases. Anastomotic leaks occurred in 17% of cases. Postoperative mortality was 4.5%. Long-term follow-up was available for 77% of the group, for a mean period of 42 months. Local recurrence was diagnosed in 4.5% of the patients and overall 5 year survival was 68%.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic rectal resection is a demanding procedure. However, laparoscopy may become the preferred approach since it is a minimally invasive procedure and has an acceptable oncologic outcome that is comparable to the open approach. This conclusion, however, needs further validation.
 

February 2010
S. Vinker, E. Zohar, R. Hoffman and A. Elhayany

Background: Most data on the incidence of rheumatic fever come from hospital records. We presumed that there may be cases of RF[1] that do not require hospitalization, especially in countries with high quality community health care. 

Objectives: To explore the incidence and characteristics of RF using community-based data. 

Methods: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted among the members (more than 450,000) of the Clalit Health Services, Central district, during 2000–2005. The electronic medical files of members up to 40 years old with a diagnosis of RF in hospital discharge letters or during community clinic visits were retrieved. Patients with a first episode of RF according to the modified Jones criteria were included.

Results: There were 44 patients with a first episode of RF. All patients were under the age of 29. The annual incidence among patients aged 0–30 years was 3.2:100,000; the highest incidence was among children aged 5–14 years (7.5:100,000), and in males the incidence was 2.26 times higher than in females. The incidence was higher among patients from large families, of non-Jewish ethnicity, and from rural areas. Twenty-five percent of the patients were both diagnosed and treated in an ambulatory care setting.

Conclusions: Although the incidence of RF in the western world and in Israel is low, the disease still occurs and mainly affects children. Any future estimates of disease incidence should take into account that RF is becoming an ambulatorily treated disease.  






[1] RF = rheumatoc fever


July 2009
D. Dvir, R. Beigel, C. Hoffmann, G. Tsarfati, Z. Farfel and R. Pauzner
June 2009
February 2008
I. Makarovsky, G. Markel, A. Hoffman, O. Schein, T. Brosh-Nissimov, Z. Tashma, T. Dushnitsky and A. Eisenkraft
November 2007
A.H. Abbasi, R. Ramadan, A. Hoffman and Z. Abassi
October 2007
I. Makarovsky, G. Markel, A. Hoffman, O. Schein, A. Finkelstien, T. Brosh-Nissimov, Z. Tashma, T. Dushnitsky and A. Eisenkraft
September 2007
I. Makarovsky, G. Markel, A. Hoffman, O. Schein, T.M. Brosh-Nissimov, A. Finkelstien, Z. Tashma, T. Dushnitsky and A. Eisenkraft
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel