Second opinion on avascular necrosis of the talus bone

[aiwntrmute]

Note: I am reposting this post with corrections to the xrays without patient information.

I was hoping for a second opinion from my colleagues regarding a diagnosis.

A patient recently came in due to pain in his right foot. A few months ago he broke his ankle, a cast was placed but during the time they missed the fact the talus bone was injured. Based on these x-rays I believe he now has avascular necrosis of the talus bone but some of my colleagues think it is a degenerative cyst, sign of deforming arthrosis.

Any Thoughts?
Vladimir.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Feli]

You are violating HIPPA laws. Take that post and pic down immediately.

This is not a forum for medical advice. GTFO

PS, read the evidence on calc fractures, esp Roy Sanders, on PubMed. And again, GTFO with violations of the law.

...did I mention GTFO? Thanks.

 

[PADPM]

Ditto. This is not the venue for second opinions.

 

[pacpod]

While requesting medical advice for oneself is not allowed on SDN, case discussion (including properly de-identified imaging) is allowed and considered within the scope of these forums.

This is also a reminder to please be courteous and respectful to other users.

 

[dyk343]

Is this a violation of HIPPA? I'm on the fence about it.

 

[Feli]

While requesting medical advice for oneself is not allowed on SDN, case discussion (including properly de-identified imaging) is allowed and considered within the scope of these forums.

This is also a reminder to please be courteous and respectful to other users.

He has names and dates on the images. Even the image file name has a (patient's last) name on it. It's a blatant violation of federal HIPPA laws. It needs to go down immediately, unless SDN wants to be open to HIPPA liabilities?

The fact remains the OP initially posted the patient's name and private information on a public forum which is illegal. Just because that information has now been removed doesn't make the initial act any less illegal. Plenty of people prob saw that private information.

Yup.^^

 

[All4MyDaughter]

There is no PHI here. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't. But I have reviewed this image several times thanks to multiple reports and there is no HIPAA violation. It's no different than other de-identified images one can find online.

 

[Ferocity]

There is no PHI here. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't. But I have reviewed this image several times thanks to multiple reports and there is no HIPAA violation. It's no different than other de-identified images one can find online.

The patient's name is in the image address...

...the patient is the OP...

 

[Adam Smasher]

Fun fact: there's only 1 P in HIPAA

 

[Ferocity]

Are we having HIPPO problems now?

 

[dyk343]

Fun fact: there's only 1 P in HIPAA