Radiopaedia Blog

In many cases it’s just best to adequately describe your findings, but every radiologist knows about the myriad of classification and grading systems out there. often comes to the rescue if you come across an obscure classification and even for often used ones if you just can’t remember its details or considerations. 

However, it’s also good to know if a classification is still being used or when it was last updated. And on a historical note it’s just nice to find out how it developed and who came up with it.

Over the last months a team of our editors (Piotr Gołofit, Varun Babu, Praveen Jha, Matthew Morgan, Frank Gaillard, Jeremy Jones and yours truly) worked together on “Operation Bookworm” to provide just that information for almost 170 classifications and gradings at, also giving these articles a small facelift where needed. That’s about a third of our articles on classifications and gradings.

Some examples:

We believe that these additions are very relevant to everyday clinical practice and welcome everyone to help keeping them up to date and add this information in the remaining articles. 

This project is a great example of ongoing critical appraisal of existing content at, illustrating the dynamic and cooperative nature of a community based encyclopedia that everyone can use and contribute to for free and forever.

We hope you enjoy it!

Tim Luijkx is a Radiopaedia senior editor, and radiology registrar at the Meander Medical Center in Amersfoort, the Netherlands

Twitter: @TimLuijkx

NB: Opinions expressed are those of the author alone, and are not those of his employer nor of 


Leave a comment1 comment on this post.

I had no choice. I began doing ultrasound-guided biopsies in 1979 during my fellowship and there was no such thing as a biopsy guide. We had to figure out how to do it freehand ourselves and gradually, with the help of colleagues at other institutions, refined the technique. When the needle guide was developed, I found it limiting and awkward and became concerned about some of its risks as I saw others struggling with it.

Before you dismiss this as the ravings of an over-the-hill radiologist who can’t learn new tricks, my yield and adverse effect rate has been comparable (I think better), our technologists generally have preferred working with me on biopsies because my freehand technique is quicker and less uncomfortable for the patient. I have even gotten some of my colleagues to sometimes adopt my approach despite their being taught the dogma that the guide is mandatory for deep abdominal biopsies.

Can you really set the needle guide on the shelf?

There has been a myth in our department that I am the only one who CAN do all ultrasound-guided biopsies freehand (which I think is an excuse for others not to try). Anyone who really knows me understands that is absurd. I am totally uncoordinated and I cannot conceivably have some unattainable innate fine-motor skill for this. The technique I will describe can be done by anyone with basic guided-biopsy skills if you are willing to be bold. But why bother? Because I believe that this approach decreases the time to do procedures, decreases patient risk, increases flexibility and decreases cost.

Of course, I am only referring to deep abdominal and pelvic transcutaneous biopsies here. There is no question that there are situations, such as endovaginal or transrectal biopsies where a specialized needle guide is necessary. Also, I will save discussing principles of biopsies, needle choice, optimizing and saving the specimen, patient communications, timeouts, etc. for now, Instead, I will focus on why and how to do freehand biopsies and how the needle guide and the freehand techniques compare.


Typical ultrasound guide (light blue arrow) with expected needle trajectory (yellow arrows). Images adapted from: D. Plut, S. Ponorac, D. Vidmar-Bracika “Diagnostic value of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in diagnostics of solid renal lesions” ECR 2013 (view poster here


What about small and subtle lesions? 

Isn’t it necessary to use the guide for small lesions? The needle guide reliably takes you right to the lesion and assures a successful specimen, right? Can you needle guide-users say that is your consistent experience? What about the difficult-to-reach lesions? Can you see the subtle lesions as well after you put on the sheath with the gel inside? I will discuss these situations more later.

Why bother to learn how NOT use the guide?

Why did we need the guide? When I began doing biopsies, real-time ultrasound was truly primitive and deserved its moniker: “ultrasmoke.” Finding the needle was a serious challenge. Even holding the large transducer and awkward needles were limiting. We needed help! The inventors of the needle guides had great ideas and so help arrived. However, today, the needle is much easier to see and the needle systems we use are much lighter and more efficient. Nevertheless, many still believe that they are nearly obligated to use the “time-tested” help that I think we no longer need. 

Using the needle guide makes sense, right? It decreases the time to do the procedure because the needle goes right to the lesion, it increases precision and minimizes the need for repeat biopsies…except, in my experience, it doesn’t. It seems to be such an imperative for some that I have even seen the guide used for large lesions bulging the skin, for which you really don’t even need ultrasound or for fine needle aspirations of superficial thyroid nodules. This series is about how not to be the person that does that.

In part 2 of this series, I will start describing planning, prepping and administering local anesthesia for freehand biopsies and contrast those techniques to using the needle guide.

In this series: 

Lincoln L. Berland, MD is Professor Emeritus of the Abdominal Imaging Section of University of Alabama at Birmingham. 

Twitter: @linkberland

NB: Opinions expressed are those of the author alone, and are not those of his employer nor of 



Leave a comment1 comment on this post.

20th Sep 2016 09:30 UTC Rapids

We are excited to launch Rapids project. Click through to access six packets of 30 plain films to help prepare for the FRCR 2B rapid reporting exam or just test your skills. 

Did you spot the solitary pulmonary nodule? 

Take a look at the corresponding CT, which shows the pulmonary nodule much more clearly. This patient had a confirmed pathological diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma. 

Case courtesy of Dr Henry Knipe,, rID: 29787

Leave a comment2 comment on this post.

20th Sep 2016 01:46 UTC

Cone beam CT project

A quick project aimed at creating a cone beam CT article and additional of new cases. 

  • Type: topic cluster creation
  • Results:
    • create new cone beam CT article
    • addition of two new cases
  • Duration: 1-2 weeks
  • Team: Matthew Lukies, David Gai, Jeremy Jones, Ian Bickle, Henry Knipe,
Leave a comment1 comment on this post.

The Radiopaedia Facebook Page has officially passed 500K likes! We decided to mark the occasion by arranging multiple different pathologies into a celebratory number 500. Can you make all seven diagnoses? Take a look for yourself and then check out the answers below. Good luck! 





Dr Matt Skalski is a research fellow in musculoskeletal radiology at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine in the United States, and is a senior editor at

Twitter: @docskalski

 NB: Opinions expressed are those of the author alone, and are not those of his employer nor of


Leave a comment2 comment on this post.

Blog Subscription

We will only send you an email when there are new posts.

Updating… Please wait.

 Unable to process the form. Check for errors and try again.

 Thank you for updating your details.