Search

Objective To evaluate the impact of a new electronic procedural protocol on start times of pre-operative breast localization procedures. Methods This HIPAA-compliant, Institutional Review Board-exempted, quality improvement initiative was performed at a large tertiary academic center. In May 2018, an electronic version of the pre-procedure protocol for breast localizations was created within the electronic health record; prior to this time, the protocol was completed manually on a paper form. Mean time between: (1) appointment time and procedure start time, (2) procedure begin-to-end time, and (3) arrival to appointment time were compared for all female patients undergoing pre-operative breast localization procedures during 4-month periods pre-implementation of the electronic procedural protocol (January-April 2018), and post-implementation (June-September 2018), excluding the May 2018 implementation month. Statistical analysis was done by two tailed t-test and statistical process control charting. Results Pre-implementation, 427 procedures were performed, and post-implementation 409 procedures were performed. Three pre-implementation cases performed more than 3 hours prior to appointment time were excluded (presumed to be rescheduled cases). Mean time between appointment time and procedure start time decreased from 2.7 minutes after to 5.6 minutes before appointment start time, an 8.3-minute improvement (P = 0.0001), with sustained improvement by statistical process control analysis. Mean time for procedure length increased by 4.7 minutes (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in mean time of patient arrival to appointment time pre- and post-implementation. Conclusion Implementation of an electronic protocol process for pre-operative breast localizations was associated with a significant and sustained reduction in time between appointment time and procedure start time.

OBJECTIVES: Due to most states’ legislation, mammographic density categorization has potentially far-reaching implications, but remains subjective based on BIRADS(®) guidelines. We aimed to determine 1) effect of BI-RADS(®) 5(th) edition (5(th)-ed) vs 4(th)-edition (4(th)-ed) guidelines on reader agreement regarding density assessment; 2) 5(th)-ed vs 4(th)-ed density distribution, and visual vs quantitative assessment agreement; 3) agreement between experienced vs less experienced readers. METHODS: In a retrospective review, six breast imaging radiologists (BIR) (23–30 years’ experience) visually assessed density of 200 screening mammograms performed September 2012–January 2013 using 5(th)-ed guidelines. Results were compared to 2016 data of the same readers evaluating the same mammograms using 4(th)-ed guidelines after a training module. 5(th)-ed density categorization by seven junior BIR (1–5 years’ experience) was compared to eight experienced BIR. Nelson et al.’s kappas (K(m),K(w)), Fleiss’ K(F), and Cohen’s K were calculated. Quantitative density using Volpara was compared with reader assessments. RESULTS: Inter-reader weighted agreement using 5(th)-ed is moderately strong, 0.73 (K(w), s.e.= 0.01), similar to 4(th)-ed, 0.71 (K(w), s.e.= 0.03). Intra-reader Cohen’s k is 0.23–0.34, similar to 4(th)-ed. Binary not-dense vs dense categorization, using 5(th)-ed results in higher dense categorization vs 4(th)-ed (p

Percutaneously implanted miniaturized devices such as fiducial markers, miniaturized sensors, and drug delivery devices have an important and expanding role in diagnosing and treating a variety of diseases. However, there is a need to develop and evaluate anchoring methods to ensure that these microdevices remain secure without dislodgement, as even minimal migration within tissues could result in loss of microdevice functionality or clinical complications. Here we describe two anchoring methods made from biocompatible materials: (1) a self-expanding nitinol mesh anchor and (2) self-expanding hydrogel particles contained within pliable netting. We integrate these anchors into existing drug-screening microdevices and experimentally measure forces required to dislodge them from varying tissues. We report similar dislodgement forces of 738 ± 37, 707 ± 40, 688 ± 29, and 520 ± 28 mN for nitinol-anchored microdevices, and 735 ± 98, 702 ± 46, 457 ± 47, and 459 ± 39 mN for hydrogel-anchored microdevices in liver, kidney, fat, and muscle tissues, respectively—significantly higher compared with 13 ± 2, 15 ± 3, 15 ± 2, and 15 ± 3 mN for non-anchored microdevices (p &lt, 0.001 in all tissues). The anchoring methods increased resistance to dislodgement by a factor of 30–50× in all tissues, did not increase the required needle gauge for insertion, and were compatible with percutaneous implantation and removal. These results indicate that anchoring significantly improves microdevice stability and should reduce migration risk in a variety of biological tissues.

Increasing radiologic exam volume and complexity necessitates leveraging advanced hardware solutions to optimize workflow efficiency. We evaluated radiologist satisfaction of a programmable 13-button non-conventional mouse compared to a conventional three-button mouse in daily interpretation workflow following a brief 2-day trial period. A prospective study was conducted with radiology staff and residents in a tertiary care center from 2015 to 2016. A survey was distributed prior to and after a tutorial and a 2-day non-conventional mouse trial period. The post-survey evaluated usage time, device settings, satisfaction, preferences, and perceived efficiency of both mice. Descriptive analyses, correlations, the Sign test, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to evaluate responses. Fifty-nine participants completed pre- and post-surveys. Several (41%, n = 24) had prior experience with a non-conventional mouse. Prior to the trial, one third of all participants (35.6%, n = 21) reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their conventional mouse. After spending an average of 9.8 h using the non-conventional mouse, there were no statistically significant changes in overall satisfaction with either conventional or non-conventional mice (p = 0.84 and p = 0.39, respectively). However, 76.3% (n = 45) agreed/somewhat agreed they preferred to use the non-conventional mouse in their daily workflow as opposed to the conventional mouse. The non-conventional mouse was also perceived as more efficient (66.1%, n = 39), required less time (62.7%, n = 37) and effort (74.6%, n = 44) to view images, allowed for easier manipulation of windows/images (76.3%, n = 45), and was more comfortable to use (78.0%, n = 46). Although there were no statistically significant shifts in overall satisfaction, participants reported a higher level of satisfaction, perceived efficiency, and preference for a non-conventional 13-button mouse compared to a conventional three-button mouse following a brief, 2-day trial period.

Purpose To evaluate perceptual difference in breast density classification using synthesized mammography (SM) compared with standard or full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for screening. Materials and Methods This institutional review board–approved, retrospective, multireader study evaluated breast density on 200 patients who underwent baseline screening mammogram during which both SM and FFDM were obtained contemporaneously from June 1, 2016, through November 30, 2016. Qualitative breast density was independently assigned by seven readers initially evaluating FFDM alone. Then, in a separate session, these same readers assigned breast density using synthetic views alone on the same 200 patients. The readers were again blinded to each other's assignment. Qualitative density assessment was based on BI-RADS fifth edition. Interreader agreement was evaluated with κ statistic using 95% confidence intervals. Testing for homogeneity in paired proportions was performed using McNemar's test with a level of significance of .05. Results For patients across the SM and standard 2-D data set, diagnostic testing with McNemar's test with P = 0.32 demonstrates that the minimal density transitions across FFDM and SM are not statistically significant density shifts. Taking clinical significance into account, only 8 of 200 (4%) patients had clinically significant transition (dense versus not dense). There was substantial interreader agreement with overall κ in FFDM of 0.71 (minimum 0.53, maximum 0.81) and overall SM κ average of 0.63 (minimum 0.56, maximum 0.87). Conclusion Overall subjective breast density assignment by radiologists on SM is similar to density assignment on standard 2-D mammogram.