• Barriers
• Challenges
• Collaboration
• Healthcare services
• Medical
• Miscommunication
• Patient care
• Radiology
• Referring physician
• Solutions

• Artificial intelligence
• clinical decision support
• machine learning
• natural language processing
• radiology domain

To assess and compare the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous intradiscal ozone therapy in patients affected by lumbar disc herniation, with and without history of COVID-19 infection.

After the rising of COVID-19 pandemics in Italy, 47 consecutive percutaneous intradiscal ozone therapies were performed on patients with low back pain and/or sciatic pain due to lumbar disc herniation. Among these, 19 had suffered from COVID-19 and successively recovered with no residual symptoms, while the remaining 28 had not previously been affected by COVID-19 and were not convalescent. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was administered before the treatment and at 1-month and 3-month follow-up in order to assess the clinical outcome.

The two groups were similar in terms of patient age (p-value 0.54), treated levels (p-value 0.26) and pre-procedure ODI (p-value 0.33). Technical success was achieved in all cases. In patients previously affected by COVID-19, mean ODI decrease was 11.58 ± 9.51 (35.72%) at 1-month follow-up and 20.63 ± 9.87 (63.63%) at 3-month follow-up. In patients never affected by COVID-19, mean ODI decrease was 20.93 ± 10.53 (58.73%) at 1-month follow-up and 22.07 ± 11.36 (61.92%) at 3-month follow-up. Eventually, clinical success was registered in 84.21% (16/19) of patients with history of COVID-19 infection and in 85.71% (24/28) of patients with no history of COVID-19 infection. No major complication was registered.

In case of lumbar disc herniation treated with percutaneous intradiscal ozone therapy, patients previously affected by COVID-19 showed a significantly longer recovery time.

• COVID-19
• Disc herniation
• Oswestry disability index
• Ozone therapy
• Percutaneous intradiscal treatments

• COVID-19/complications
• Humans
• Intervertebral Disc Displacement/complications
• Intervertebral Disc Displacement/therapy
• Low Back Pain/drug therapy
• Low Back Pain/etiology
• Lumbar Vertebrae
• Ozone/therapeutic use
• Treatment Outcome

To compare technical success, clinical success, complications and radiation dose for percutaneous intradiscal ozone therapy in patients with lumbar disc herniation using fluoroscopic guidance versus conventional computed tomography (CT) guidance.

Between March 2018and March 2021, 124consecutive percutaneous intradiscal ozone therapies wereperformedon111 patients with low back pain (LBP) and/or sciatic pain due to lumbar disc herniation, using fluoroscopic or conventional CT guidance, respectively in 53 and 58 herniated lumbar discs, with at least 1-month follow up. Dose area product (DAP) and dose length product (DLP) were recorded respectively for fluoroscopy and CT, and converted to effective dose (ED).

Fluoroscopic and CT groups were similar in terms of patient age (p-value 0.39), patient weight (p-value 0.49) and pre-procedure Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, p-value 0.94). Technical success was achieved in all cases. Clinical success was obtained in 83.02% (44/53) patients in fluoroscopic group and 79.31% (46/58) in CT group. Mean DAP was 11.63Gy*cm² (range 5.42–21.61). Mean DLP was 632.49mGy-cm (range 151.51–1699). ED was significantly lower in the fluoroscopic group compared toCT group (0.34 vs. 5.53mSv, p = 0.0119). No major complication was registered. Minor complications were observed in 4 cases (2 in fluoroscopic group; 2 in CT group).

Compared to conventional CT guidance, fluoroscopic guidance for percutaneous intradiscal ozone therapy in patients with lumbar disc herniation shows similar technical and clinical success rates, with lower radiation dose. This technique helps sparing dose exposure to patients.

• Fluoroscopy/methods
• Humans
• Intervertebral Disc Displacement/diagnostic imaging
• Intervertebral Disc Displacement/drug therapy
• Lumbar Vertebrae/diagnostic imaging
• Ozone/therapeutic use
• Radiation Exposure
• Retrospective Studies
• Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
• Treatment Outcome

To assess efficacy and safety of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of osteoid osteoma (OO) in children and adolescents, and to compare technical success, clinical success, radiation dose and procedure duration time of CBCT guidance to conventional computed tomography (CT) guidance.

Between 2015 and 2019, 53 consecutive percutaneous RFA were performed on pediatric patients with CBCT or conventional CT guidance, respectively, in 24 and 29 children and adolescents with 24-month follow-up. Dose area product (DAP) and dose length product (DLP) were recorded, respectively, for CBCT and conventional CT and converted to effective doses (ED).

CBCT and conventional CT groups were similar in terms of patient age and weight, tumor size and tumor location. Technical success was achieved in all cases. Primary clinical success was 91.67% (22/24) for the CBCT group and 89.66% (26/29) for the conventional CT group. Mean DAP was 64.75Gycm2 (range 6.0–266.7). Mean DLP was 972.62mGycm (range 337–2344). ED was significantly lower in the CBCT group compared to the conventional CT group (0.34 mSv vs. 5.53 mSv, p = 0.0119). Procedure duration time was not significantly longer in the CBCT group (102.25 min vs. 92.34 min, p = 0.065). No major complication was registered. Minor complications were observed in 4 patients (2 in CBCT; 2 in conventional CT).

Compared to conventional CT guidance, CBCT guidance for percutaneous OO ablation shows similar technical and clinical success rates, with reduced radiation dose and equivalent procedure duration time. This technique helps sparing dose exposure to pediatric patients.

• CBCT
• CT
• Fluoroscopy
• Osteoid osteoma
• Radiofrequency ablation
• Thermal ablation

• CT pulmonary angiography
• Critical result communication
• Emergency radiology
• Pulmonary embolism
• Quality initiative

• Angiography
• Cohort Studies
• Humans
• Pulmonary Embolism/diagnostic imaging
• Retrospective Studies
• Tomography, X-Ray Computed

To investigate modes and quality of interprofessional communication between clinicians and radiologists, and to identify difficulties and possibilities in this context, as experienced by referring clinicians.

Focus group interviews with 22 clinicians from different specialties were carried out. The leading question was: "How do you experience communication, verbal and nonverbal, between referring clinicians and radiologists?" Content analysis was used for interpretation of data.

Overall, referring clinicians expressed satisfaction with their interprofessional communication with radiologists, and digital access to image data was highly appreciated. However, increased reliance on digital communication has led to reduced face-to-face contacts between clinicians and radiologists. This seems to constitute a potential threat to bilateral feedback, joint educational opportunities, and interprofessional development. Cumbersome medical information software systems, time constraints, shortage of staff, reliance on teleradiology, and lack of uniform format of radiology reports were mentioned as problematic. Further implementation of structured reporting was considered beneficial.

Deepened face-to-face contacts between clinicians and radiologists were considered prerequisites for mutual understanding, deepened competence and mutual trust; a key factor in interprofessional communication. Clinicians and radiologists should come together in order to secure bilateral feedback and obtain deepened knowledge of the specific needs of subspecialized clinicians.

• face-to-face communication
• interprofessional communication
• interprofessional trust
• radiologist
• radiology report
• referring physician

• Radiography
• diagnostic errors
• medical errors

• Digital radiology
• Interprofessional communication
• Oral communication
• Patient safety
• Radiologist
• Radiology conference
• Referring physician
• Request form
• Verbal communication
• Written communication

• Communication
• Comprehension
• Delivery of Health Care
• Focus Groups
• Humans
• Interprofessional Relations
• Physician-Patient Relations
• Prospective Studies
• Radiology
• Referral and Consultation