3.8 Article

Frequency of acute longus colli tendinitis on CT examinations

Journal

EMERGENCY RADIOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 645-651

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10140-017-1537-z

Keywords

Longus colli; Retropharyngeal tendinitis; Prevertebral tendinitis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose We attempted to determine the frequency of acute longus colli tendinitis on diagnostic CT imaging performed at a large multicenter health care system. By correlating with the pre-imaging clinical information, we investigated which patient presentations should lead the radiologist to increased suspicion for this condition. Methods Images from a total of 8101 adult CT examinations of the neck and cervical spine performed over a 3-month period were evaluated by researchers independent of the original clinical report. Clinical information available at the time of imaging was reviewed and assigned to one of five categories. Frequency of the condition was calculated by sex and clinical presentation. This retrospective study with waiver of consent and waiver of HIPPA was approved by our IRB. Results Nine positive scans were found for an overall frequency of 1.1 per 1000 examinations. The frequency was significantly higher (11.4 per thousand) on scans performed of patients presenting without history of recent trauma, concern for tumor, suspected postoperative complication, or clinical signs of infection localized to the neck. Although frequency in males was higher than in females, this did not reach statistical significance. In no positive or negative case was longus colli tendinitis considered in the pre-imaging documentation. Conclusions Findings of acute longus colli tendinitis on CT examination generally occur in the absence of prior mention of this condition in the medical record. The radiologist should be particularly alert for this diagnosis when a patient presents with rapid-onset neck pain without a clear history of recent trauma or other etiologies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available