The Laryngoscope V C 2013 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc. Radiologic Reporting for Paranasal Sinus Computed Tomography: A Multi-Institutional Review of Content and Consistency Michael W. Deutschmann, MD; Jeffrey Yeung, MD; Michael Bosch, BSc; John T. Lysack, MD; Michael Kingstone, MD; Shaun J. Kilty, MD; Luke R. Rudmik, MD Objectives/Hypothesis: To optimize clinical care, radiologic reporting should consistently include clinically pertinent in- formation. The purpose of this study was to: 1) determine the current satisfaction of otolaryngologists with paranasal sinus computed tomography (CT) radiologic reporting and 2) evaluate the comprehensiveness of paranasal sinus CT radiologic reporting. Study Design: Two parts: 1) A national survey of all practicing otolaryngologists in Canada and 2) a retrospective review of paranasal sinus CT scan radiologic reporting. Methods: A national survey of all Canadian otolaryngologists was conducted in September 2011. Questions were focused on eliciting the current satisfaction with sinus CT radiologic reporting. At two major centers (Alberta Health Services–Calgary Zone and the Ottawa Hospital), all sinus CT scans performed over a 2-year period were identified (9,739), and 100 from each center were randomly selected for analysis. The radiology reports were scrutinized to determine if seven critical and 11 noncritical items were mentioned. Results: Many (22%) otolaryngologists are dissatisfied with current sinus CT radiologic reporting, and the majority (67%) would like more clinically useful information. All predefined sinus CT items were inconsistently reported. Anterior ethmoid artery anatomy, ethmoid skull base integrity, and sphenoethmoidal cell were the most infrequently reported critical items. Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that important information is inconsistently reported for sinus CT, and most otolaryngologists would like to see more clinically relevant content in radiology reports. Optimizing the reporting of sinus CT scans will improve communication between the radiologist and other clinicians managing patients with sinonasal disease. Key Words: Sinonasal, sinus, computed tomography, anatomy, radiology, reporting. Level of Evidence: 2b. Laryngoscope, 123:1100–1105, 2013 INTRODUCTION The emergence of high-resolution paranasal sinus computed tomography (sinus CT) imaging has advanced our understanding of sinonasal anatomy and physiology, and was fundamental to the rise of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). 1 In addition to patient-based symptom requirements, recent guidelines have stated that the diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) requires a dem- onstration of mucosal disease using one of three potential objective measures, one of which is radiologic (CT) examination. 2–4 Thus, sinus CT is an important investigation that aids in the diagnosis of CRS. The major advantage of CT imaging is the excellent osseous anatomic detail that it provides, thereby making it essential for preoperative planning and the gold-stand- ard imaging modality for inflammatory diseases of the paranasal sinuses. The important information that is attained from detailed sinus CT analysis includes the extent of the dis- ease, characterization of the disease, location of surgically relevant anatomic structures, and the identifi- cation of critical anatomic variations that, if missed by the operating surgeon, could result in devastating complications. To improve the quality of reporting, standardized reporting templates have been developed for several pathology and radiology investigations such as thyroid ultrasound, 5 breast mammogram, 6 breast ultrasound, 7 and prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 8 Advantages of standardized reporting methods include optimizing communication between physicians in different specialties, increasing the relevance of the reported information, and potentially improving patient safety by reducing medical errors. Standardized sinus CT reporting has been attempted, but it has failed to gain acceptance in the radiology and otolaryngology communities, 9,10 likely due to the checklists being overly complex and of low clinical utility. From the Division of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery (M.W.D., M.B., L.R.R.), and the Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology (J.T.L.); University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta; the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (J.Y., S.J.K.), and the Department of Diagnostic Imaging (M.K.), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Editor’s Note: This Manuscript was accepted for publication October 30, 2012. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose. Send correspondence to Dr. Luke Rudmik, Division of Otolaryngo- logy–Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Foothills Medical Centre, South Tower Suite 602, 1403–29th St. NW T2N 2T9, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. E-mail: Lukerudmik@gmail.com DOI: 10.1002/lary.23906 Laryngoscope 123: May 2013 Deutschmann et al.: Radiologic Reporting for Paranasal Sinus Computed Tomography 1100