![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Furiously googling web MD to discern differences in imaging platforms makes you exactly what you are every day. A dumpy ****ing moron. Go dive deep into a tranny, schmo. |
Quote:
Looking to be hired by schmo on a slow Friday. |
Quote:
I'll leave the trannies for you to deal with. |
Quote:
Okay schmo. |
Too much alpha in this thread.
Geez, wtf. A fight over who knows more about medical scanning equipment. In my best Rodney king voice "can't we all just get along?" |
Quote:
|
Wait...
...did I just read trash talking, "shut up engineer, in this thread about million dollar equipment that takes amazing images inside the human body... my whores are great.... ? <iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/vUEznRmVQfG2Q" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/story-conversation-topic-vUEznRmVQfG2Q">via GIPHY</a></p> |
Quote:
LMAO “I’ve had a hundred car crashes! My mother, 2 brothers, 7 stepchildren and 3 hired hookers died from me crashing cars. I know more about automotive crash design than anybody”!!! |
Quote:
PET/CT scans are preferable, as the FDG (likely the tracer they were using unless you have prostate cancer or a specicic type of neuroendocrine tumor) will localize in tumor cells due to their preferential use of glucose. And since positron emission creates an annihilation event that produces two gamma rays emitting 180 degrees from one another, you get good visualization of areas with higher glucose uptake (tumors), and a 3D field of view. From there, they just overlay the PET scan on top of the CT to gives you functionality and anatomy. Worst part about getting an FDG scan is that you can't have carbs the day before. My first one was the day before SB XLIV. That was suboptimal timing. |
Quote:
Nah, bro. You're much better off using PET/CT for oncology. F18 Sodium Fluoride is also better than MRI and bone scintigraphy for skeletal lesions related to prostate and breast cancer. |
Quote:
CT has just become such a crutch for doctors it often over prescribed, if I have already located and sized a kidney stone or confirmed an appendicitis on ultrasound you do t really need the CT , but they still order it. |
Quote:
And nobody thought much about dose. Since that conference, we worked with a group from Duke University setting up pediatric weight based protocols reducing dose by 75%. As for the 2% claim, I’d like to see what that’s based on. The risk/benefit factor plays a large role in CT usage. And yes, while you can localize a stone in renal pelvis or lower pole with US, a urologist wants to be sure it hasn’t made its way down to the UPJ or deeper before navigating a wire into the ureter and following that with a rigid scope. Or a flexible scope into the kidney. Delicate surgery, that. |
Quote:
|
Monti,
I totally agree with you about the overuse of CT. Curious about your thoughts on that in the Canadian health system. In US health systems, it’s (IMO) overused because of our “business model”. The more scans, the more revenue generated, the greater profit by individual health care systems. And as you know, CT/MRI generate a ton of revenue vs US. (At least in the systems in which I operate). How does it work in your world? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.