Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0)There is a shared disciplinary sovereignity when it comes to radiological image interpretation. Surgeons are end users, they work with images as tools asking practical questions concerning all aspects of interventional consequences (i.e., is a certain type of surgery needed, how urgent is that surgery, which access would be practicable, do they need additional information beforehand which can only be obtained by a different imaging modality, and so on). Surgical image interpretation is rather focused than it is thorough; and while surgeons enjoy both the privilege and the burden of a decision-oriented work style, they also highly value the occasional chat with their local (neuro)radiologist.
Mukerji, Nitin, Julian Cahill, Alessandro Paluzzi, Damian Holliman, Shuaib Dambatta, and Philip J. Kane. “Emergency Head CT Scans: Can Neurosurgical Registrars Be Relied upon to Interpret Them?” British Journal of Neurosurgery 23, no. 2 (April 2009): 158–61.
Alvin, Matthew D., Mona Shahriari, Evan Honig, Li Liu, and David M. Yousem. “Clinical Access and Utilization of Reports and Images in Neuroradiology.” Journal of the American College of Radiology 15, no. 12 (December 1, 2018): 1723–31.
Parag, Priyashini, and Timothy Craig Hardcastle. “Interpretation of Emergency CT Scans of the Head in Trauma: Neurosurgeon vs Radiologist.” World Journal of Surgery 46, no. 6 (June 2022): 1389–95.
