Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has escalated to be a global threat to public health. Analysis of the use of radiology resources may render us insight regarding the public health behavior during pandemic. We measured the influence COVID-19 had on the use of radiology resources in terms of the number of examinations performed, and turnaround time for portable radiography. Methods: This study was conducted at a tertiary hospital located in area where the prevalence of COVID-19 infection was low (0.01%). We compared the number of radiology examinations 1) before pandemic (in 2019) vs. during peak of pandemic (January to March 2020), and 2) before pandemic vs. after the peak of pandemic (April to June 2020) via t-tests. We repeated similar analyses for subgroups as follows: gender, age, department (outpatient, inpatient, emergency, screening), body parts, and modality. We also performed a survey of radiologic technologists regarding the turnaround time and rate-limiting step of portable radiography for patients with and without suspicion or confirmation of COVID-19. Results: Although not statistically significant, the daily number of examinations during the peak of pandemic decreased by 9 percentage points (2,638 vs. 2,413; difference [95% CI], −225 [−489, 38]; P = 0.094). The percentage change was especially notable for children, emergency, and screening department (25, 19, and 44 percentage points, respectively). After the peak of the pandemic, the number of examinations increased back to near the prepandemic level (2,638 vs. 2,588; −50 [−317, 218]; P = 0.71). The turnaround time for portable radiography tended to be longer for patients with suspicion or confirmation of COVID-19, with donning personal protective equipment being the major rate-limiting step. Conclusion The number of examinations decreased during the pandemic, reflecting the tendency of the public to refrain from seeking medical care even in a community of low infection risk. Nevertheless, burden of healthcare providers may not have decreased as much, considering longer turnaround time required for COVID-19 related examinations.

BACKGROUND: To develop a rabbit epidural steroid injection (ESI) model for analyzing steroid retention in the tissue, and to assess the difference in steroid retention in the model according to the location and time elapsed after ESI. METHODS: Fluoroscopy-guided ESI was performed using the interlaminar approach between the lowest two lumbar segments in 13 female New Zealand white rabbits. Four rabbits were allocated to each of three different groups according to the time of sacrifice: 3, 7, and 15 days post-ESI; the remaining rabbit was sacrificed immediately post-ESI to obtain baseline data. After sacrifice, two segments were harvested: the lowest two lumbar vertebrae and another two lumbar vertebrae immediately above these. The residual steroid amount (RSA) and residual steroid concentration (RSC) in the collected spinal columns were analyzed. A linear mixed model was used to compare RSAs and RSCs between the injected and adjacent segments, and among the number of days until sacrifice; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Both RSA and RSC of the injected segment were significantly higher than those of the adjacent segment (P < 0.001, both). The RSA and RSC significantly decreased over time (P = 0.009 and P = 0.016, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The developed rabbit ESI model verified that significantly more steroid was retained at the injected segment than at the adjacent segment and the residual steroid decreased over time. This model could be useful not only for comparing current steroid medications, but also for developing new, better steroid formulations.
Female ; Fluoroscopy ; Humans ; Injections, Epidural ; Lumbar Vertebrae ; Models, Animal ; Rabbits ; Spine ; Steroids

Objective: We compared appendiceal visualization on 2-mSv CT vs. conventional-dose CT (median 7 mSv) in adolescents and young adults and analyzed the undesirable clinical and diagnostic outcomes that followed appendiceal nonvisualization. Materials and Methods: A total of 3074 patients aged 15–44 years (mean ± standard deviation, 28 ± 9 years; 1672 female) from 20 hospitals were randomized to the 2-mSv CT or conventional-dose CT group (1535 vs. 1539) from December 2013 through August 2016. A total of 161 radiologists from 20 institutions prospectively rated appendiceal visualization (grade 0, not identified; grade 1, unsure or partly visualized; and grade 2, clearly and entirely visualized) and the presence of appendicitis in these patients. The final diagnosis was based on CT imaging and surgical, pathologic, and clinical findings. We analyzed undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes, such as negative appendectomy, perforated appendicitis, more extensive than simple appendectomy, delay in patient management, or incorrect CT diagnosis, which followed appendiceal nonvisualization (defined as grade 0 or 1) and compared the outcomes between the two groups. Results: In the 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT groups, appendiceal visualization was rated as grade 0 in 41 (2.7%) and 18 (1.2%) patients, respectively; grade 1 in 181 (11.8%) and 81 (5.3%) patients, respectively; and grade 2 in 1304 (85.0%) and 1421 (92.3%) patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Overall, undesirable outcomes were rare in both groups. Compared to the conventional-dose CT group, the 2-mSv CT group had slightly higher rates of perforated appendicitis (1.1% [17] vs. 0.5% [7], p = 0.06) and false-negative diagnoses (0.4% [6] vs. 0.0% [0], p = 0.01) following appendiceal nonvisualization. Otherwise, these two groups were comparable. Conclusion The use of 2-mSv CT instead of conventional-dose CT impairs appendiceal visualization in more patients. However, appendiceal nonvisualization on 2-mSv CT rarely leads to undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes.