Las pruebas de diagnóstico por imagen son herramientas esenciales utilizadas por los profesionales médicos para ayudar a diagnosticar y controlar una serie de patologías. Sin embargo, la utilidad de las pruebas de diagnóstico por imagen depende de cómo se utilicen e interpreten. En este artículo, exploraremos la importancia de analizar diversos factores para respaldar el diagnóstico por imagen.
Las pruebas de diagnóstico por imagen incluyen radiografías, tomografías computarizadas (TC), resonancias magnéticas (RM) y ecografías. Estas pruebas proporcionan a los profesionales una forma no invasiva de examinar el interior del cuerpo, identificar anomalías y controlar los cambios a lo largo del tiempo. Sin embargo, la interpretación de las pruebas de diagnóstico por imagen puede ser subjetiva, y los resultados pueden verse influidos por diversos factores, como la calidad del equipo utilizado, la experiencia y formación del técnico que realiza la prueba y la pericia del profesional médico que interpreta los resultados.
En el siguiente VIDEOpaper aprenderemos 16 curiosidades evidenciadas por 23 artículos científicos.
Este contenido únicamente está disponible para suscriptores. Puedes
ACCEDER en este enlace o
SUSCRIBIRTE a la zona premium.
✕
REFERENCIAS:
1.Videman T, Battie MC, Ripatti S, Gill K, Manninen H, Kaprio J. Determinants of the progression in lumbar degeneration: a 5-year follow-up study of adult male monozygotic twins. Spine. 2006;31(6):671-678.
2.Alyas F, Turner M, Connell D. MRI findings in the lumbar spines of asymptomatic, adolescent, elite tennis players. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41(11):836-841; discussion 841.
3.Yukawa Y, Kato F, Matsubara Y, Kajino G, Nakamura S, Nitta H. Serial magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study of lumbar disc herniation conservatively treated for average 30 months: relation between reduction of herniation and degeneration of disc. J Spinal Disord. 1996;9(3):251-256.
4.Masui T, Yukawa Y, Nakamura S, et al. Natural history of patients with lumbar disc herniation observed by magnetic resonance imaging for minimum 7 years. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(2): 121-126.
5.Komori H, Shinomiya K, Nakai O, Yamaura I, Takeda S, Furuya K. The natural history of herniated nucleus pulposus with radiculopathy. Spine. 1996;21(2): 225-229.
6.Matsubara Y, Kato F, Mimatsu K, Kajino G, Nakamura S, Nitta H. Serial changes on MRI in lumbar disc herniations treated conservatively. Neuroradiology. 1995;37(5):378-383.
7.Zhong M, Liu JT, Jiang H, et al. Incidence of Spontaneous Resorption of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis. Pain Physician. 2017;20(1):E45-E52.
8.Kjaer P, Leboeuf-Yde C, Korsholm L, Sorensen JS, Bendix T. Magnetic resonance imaging and low back pain in adults: a diagnostic imaging study of 40-year-old men and women. Spine. 2005;30(10):1173-1180.
9.Gignac MA, Davis AM, Hawker G, et al. “What do you expect? You’re just getting older”: A comparison of perceived osteoarthritis-related and aging-related health experiences in middle- and older age adults. Arthritis and rheumatism. 2006;55(6):905-912.
10.Thielke S, Sale J, Reid MC. Aging: are these 4 pain myths complicating care? J Fam Pract. 2012;61(11):666-670. 48. DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo T. What is the source of chronic low back pain and does age play a role? Pain medicine. 2011;12(2):224-233.
11.Herzog R, Elgort DR, Flanders AE, Moley PJ. Variability in diagnostic error rates of 10 MRI centers performing lumbar spine MRI examinations on the same patient within a 3-week period. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2017;17(4):554-561.
12.Okada E, Matsumoto M, Fujiwara H, Toyama Y. Disc degeneration of cervical spine on MRI in patients with lumbar disc herniation: comparison study with asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(4):585-591.
13.Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Suda K, Yamagata M, Ueta T, Kato F. Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of the cervical spines in 1211 asymptomatic subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(6):392-398.
14.Simotas AC, Shen T. Neck pain in demolition derby drivers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(4):693-696.
15.Sher JS, Uribe JW, Posada A, Murphy BJ, Zlatkin MB. Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of asymptomatic shoulders. The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 1995;77(1):10-15.
16.Milgrom C, Schaffler M, Gilbert S, van Holsbeeck M. Rotator-cuff changes in asymptomatic adults. The effect of age, hand dominance and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(2):296-298.
17.Spielmann AL, Forster BB, Kokan P, Hawkins RH, Janzen DL. Shoulder after rotator cuff repair: MR imaging findings in asymptomatic individuals–initial experience. Radiology. 1999;213(3): 705-708.
18.Munk B, Lundorf E, Jensen J. Long-term outcome of meniscal degeneration in the knee: poor association between MRI and symptoms in 45 patients followed more than 4 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75(1):89-92.
19.Bedson J, Croft PR. The discordance between clinical and radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a systematic search and summary of the literature. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2008;9:116.
20. Major NM, Helms CA. MR imaging of the knee: findings in asymptomatic collegiate basketball players. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(3):641-644.
21.Riddle DL, Jiranek WA, Hayes CW. Use of a validated algorithm to judge the appropriateness of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: a multicenter longitudinal cohort study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66(8):2134-2143.
22.Frank JM, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, et al. Prevalence of Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging Findings in Asymptomatic Volunteers: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(6): 1199-1204.
23.Silvis ML, Mosher TJ, Smetana BS, et al. High prevalence of pelvic and hip magnetic resonance imaging findings in asymptomatic collegiate and professional hockey players. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(4):715-721.