在模拟模型中使用口袋超声进入颈内静脉:双翼和单翼可视化技术的比较。

IF 3.4 Q2 Medicine Ultrasound Journal Pub Date : 2023-10-10 DOI:10.1186/s13089-023-00335-4
Jair Antonio Ruiz Garzón, Gloria Catalina Zuluaga López, Laura B Piñeros-Hernandez, Yury Forlan Bustos Martínez
{"title":"在模拟模型中使用口袋超声进入颈内静脉:双翼和单翼可视化技术的比较。","authors":"Jair Antonio Ruiz Garzón, Gloria Catalina Zuluaga López, Laura B Piñeros-Hernandez, Yury Forlan Bustos Martínez","doi":"10.1186/s13089-023-00335-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ultrasound is the current standard for central venous access due to its advantages in efficiency and safety. In-plane and out-of-plane visualization techniques are commonly used, but there is no clear evidence showing an advantage of one technique over the other. The objective of this study was to compare the success and time required for biplane visualization vs. in-plane and out-of-plane techniques in simulated models.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Ten emergency medicine specialists participated in 60 simulated events, with randomization of the visualization technique for each event. Each event required intravenous cannulation of a simulated model for jugular venous access, with a maximum of three attempts allowed. The number of attempts required for each event, success of puncture and venous cannulation, frequency of redirection and puncture of the posterior wall, time required to obtain an optimal window, visualize the needle inside the vessel, and passage of the guidewire were recorded. The success ratios and times required for each visualization technique (biplane, in-plane, and out-of-plane) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cannulation success rate was 100% for all three techniques. Success on the first attempt was 95% for biplane visualization vs. 100% for in-plane and out-of-plane. The median total time for the procedure was higher for biplane visualization (29.9 s) compared to in-plane (25.2 s) and out-of-plane (29 s), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.999). There were no significant differences in cannulation success, needle redirection, or posterior wall puncture frequency between biplane visualization and in-plane and out-of-plane techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that biplane visualization with the use of pocket ultrasound for internal jugular cannulation in simulated models did not demonstrate significant differences when compared with in-plane and out-of-plane visualization techniques. Further research with larger sample sizes may be needed to confirm these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":36911,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10564683/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Internal jugular access using pocket ultrasound in a simulated model: comparison between biplane and monoplane visualization techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Jair Antonio Ruiz Garzón, Gloria Catalina Zuluaga López, Laura B Piñeros-Hernandez, Yury Forlan Bustos Martínez\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13089-023-00335-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ultrasound is the current standard for central venous access due to its advantages in efficiency and safety. In-plane and out-of-plane visualization techniques are commonly used, but there is no clear evidence showing an advantage of one technique over the other. The objective of this study was to compare the success and time required for biplane visualization vs. in-plane and out-of-plane techniques in simulated models.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Ten emergency medicine specialists participated in 60 simulated events, with randomization of the visualization technique for each event. Each event required intravenous cannulation of a simulated model for jugular venous access, with a maximum of three attempts allowed. The number of attempts required for each event, success of puncture and venous cannulation, frequency of redirection and puncture of the posterior wall, time required to obtain an optimal window, visualize the needle inside the vessel, and passage of the guidewire were recorded. The success ratios and times required for each visualization technique (biplane, in-plane, and out-of-plane) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cannulation success rate was 100% for all three techniques. Success on the first attempt was 95% for biplane visualization vs. 100% for in-plane and out-of-plane. The median total time for the procedure was higher for biplane visualization (29.9 s) compared to in-plane (25.2 s) and out-of-plane (29 s), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.999). There were no significant differences in cannulation success, needle redirection, or posterior wall puncture frequency between biplane visualization and in-plane and out-of-plane techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that biplane visualization with the use of pocket ultrasound for internal jugular cannulation in simulated models did not demonstrate significant differences when compared with in-plane and out-of-plane visualization techniques. Further research with larger sample sizes may be needed to confirm these results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasound Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10564683/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasound Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-023-00335-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-023-00335-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:由于超声在效率和安全性方面的优势,超声是目前中心静脉通路的标准。平面内和平面外可视化技术是常用的,但没有明确的证据表明一种技术比另一种技术有优势。本研究的目的是比较模拟模型中双平面可视化与平面内和平面外技术的成功率和所需时间。方法:10名急诊医学专家参与了60个模拟事件,每个事件的可视化技术随机分组。每个事件都需要对颈静脉通路的模拟模型进行静脉插管,最多允许三次尝试。记录每次事件所需的尝试次数、穿刺和静脉插管的成功率、后壁重定向和穿刺的频率、获得最佳窗口、观察血管内针头所需的时间以及导丝的通过情况。比较了每种可视化技术(双平面、平面内和平面外)的成功率和所需时间。结果:三种技术的插管成功率均为100%。第一次尝试的成功率是双平面可视化的95%,而平面内和平面外的成功率为100%。与平面内(25.2 s)和平面外(29 s)相比,双平面可视化手术的中位总时间(29.9 s)更高,但这一差异在统计学上并不显著(p = 0.999)。双平面可视化与平面内和平面外技术在插管成功率、针头重定向或后壁穿刺频率方面没有显著差异。结论:本研究表明,在模拟模型中使用口袋超声进行颈内静脉插管的双平面可视化与平面内和平面外可视化技术相比,没有显示出显著差异。可能需要对更大样本量的进一步研究来证实这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Internal jugular access using pocket ultrasound in a simulated model: comparison between biplane and monoplane visualization techniques.

Introduction: Ultrasound is the current standard for central venous access due to its advantages in efficiency and safety. In-plane and out-of-plane visualization techniques are commonly used, but there is no clear evidence showing an advantage of one technique over the other. The objective of this study was to compare the success and time required for biplane visualization vs. in-plane and out-of-plane techniques in simulated models.

Methodology: Ten emergency medicine specialists participated in 60 simulated events, with randomization of the visualization technique for each event. Each event required intravenous cannulation of a simulated model for jugular venous access, with a maximum of three attempts allowed. The number of attempts required for each event, success of puncture and venous cannulation, frequency of redirection and puncture of the posterior wall, time required to obtain an optimal window, visualize the needle inside the vessel, and passage of the guidewire were recorded. The success ratios and times required for each visualization technique (biplane, in-plane, and out-of-plane) were compared.

Results: Cannulation success rate was 100% for all three techniques. Success on the first attempt was 95% for biplane visualization vs. 100% for in-plane and out-of-plane. The median total time for the procedure was higher for biplane visualization (29.9 s) compared to in-plane (25.2 s) and out-of-plane (29 s), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.999). There were no significant differences in cannulation success, needle redirection, or posterior wall puncture frequency between biplane visualization and in-plane and out-of-plane techniques.

Conclusions: This study suggests that biplane visualization with the use of pocket ultrasound for internal jugular cannulation in simulated models did not demonstrate significant differences when compared with in-plane and out-of-plane visualization techniques. Further research with larger sample sizes may be needed to confirm these results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound Journal
Ultrasound Journal Health Professions-Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
45
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Quantitative lung ultrasound findings correlate with radial alveolar count in experimental bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Tele-education in point-of-care ultrasound training. Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study. Student ultrasound education, current view and controversies. Role of Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality and telemedicine. Sonographic findings using the SAFE-A protocol in pre- and post-hemodialysis patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1