This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by 
Carl Nottoli, DC November 21, 2018 at 8:35 am.
-
Posts
-
Brandon Cohen DC, CSCS
I just spoke with a radiologist to discuss a report that came back today. Specifically, I saw an annular tear and wanted to have it represented on the exam.
He agreed that it was there, and while he did not originally read the image, he deferred to the original report as it was done by a neuroradiologist.
I asked him as to why it wouldn’t be included in the report, and he explained that “new radiological research” shows that they don’t need to include them in the reports. They might call them “T2 radiolucency” or omit them altogether.
He couldn’t point me in any specific direction for the research, but I tried to find some information on the interwebs, and despite not being very good at finding research information, could not find anything.
Is anybody aware of the research that would be so compelling that the radiologists should not report the information on the image because other providers might do something dangerous if they knew what was on there?
Carl Nottoli, DC
Did they classify it as a herniation or protrusion? I spoke with a radiologist a couple years back and he said an annular tear would be assumed if the disc material is leaked out bad enough for those classifications.
Keith had mentioned something about nomenclature recently on a thread within the last 3-4 months. See if you can search for that as well.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.