腹部护理点超声检查中站立姿势对犬腹腔积液评分的评估。

IF 1.1 3区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care Pub Date : 2023-08-12 DOI:10.1111/vec.13329
Christy Buckley DVM, Marc Seitz DVM, DACVR, DABVP, Robert W. Wills MS, DVM, PhD, DACVPM, Alison M. Lee DVM, MS, DACVR
{"title":"腹部护理点超声检查中站立姿势对犬腹腔积液评分的评估。","authors":"Christy Buckley DVM,&nbsp;Marc Seitz DVM, DACVR, DABVP,&nbsp;Robert W. Wills MS, DVM, PhD, DACVPM,&nbsp;Alison M. Lee DVM, MS, DACVR","doi":"10.1111/vec.13329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the use of a standing position during abdominal point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) examination when evaluating dogs for peritoneal effusion.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Randomized prospective study over 17 months.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>Single-center, university veterinary teaching hospital.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Animals</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty dogs presenting for acute abdominal disease. Eligibility included suspicion for free peritoneal effusion and the ability to stand.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Interventions</h3>\n \n <p>Dogs underwent standing abdominal POCUS, right lateral abdominal POCUS, and a full abdominal ultrasound. We originally had nothing listed. It now includes all three ultrasound evaluations that were performed for each patient.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Measurements and Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>Patients underwent both a right lateral and standing abdominal POCUS via a previously described abdominal focused assessment with sonography for trauma (A-FASTrl and A-FASTs, respectively) technique in a randomized and sequential order followed by a full abdominal ultrasound (AUS-full). The A-FASTs examination included a right flank location in addition to the following standard views: subxiphoid, left flank, urinary bladder, and umbilicus. Five-second cine loops were obtained at each location for each examination and reviewed in the order they were obtained. Locations for both A-FAST exams were interrogated in the same order every time. The cine loops were scored for the degree of peritoneal effusion based on a previously published abdominal fluid scoring system by a board-certified radiologist, radiology resident, and radiology intern. The overall abdominal fluid score (AFS) was compared to a subjective full abdominal ultrasound score given by a board-certified radiologist. Six dogs had no peritoneal effusion, 13 had a small volume (AFS 1 or 2), and 11 had a moderate to large volume (AFS 3 or 4). Excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient) was found between the A-FASTs and A-FASTrl techniques (0.95, 0.93, 0.94), good agreement between A-FASTs and AUS-full (0.80, 0.77, 0.82), and good agreement between A-FASTrl and AUS-full (0.80, 0.82, 0.84). The interobserver agreement was good (0.87) for the A-FASTs technique and excellent (0.91) for the A-FASTrl technique. Mean observer agreement score was excellent (0.94) when evaluating A-FASTrl to A-FASTs, good (0.86) when evaluating A-FASTs to AUS-full, and good (0.87) when evaluating A-FASTrl to AUS-full.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Performing a standing abdominal POCUS examination may be a valid option for identifying and quantifying peritoneal effusion in situations when a more traditional right lateral approach cannot be performed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17603,"journal":{"name":"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of a standing position during abdominal point-of-care ultrasound on abdominal fluid score in dogs\",\"authors\":\"Christy Buckley DVM,&nbsp;Marc Seitz DVM, DACVR, DABVP,&nbsp;Robert W. Wills MS, DVM, PhD, DACVPM,&nbsp;Alison M. Lee DVM, MS, DACVR\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/vec.13329\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To assess the use of a standing position during abdominal point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) examination when evaluating dogs for peritoneal effusion.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>Randomized prospective study over 17 months.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Setting</h3>\\n \\n <p>Single-center, university veterinary teaching hospital.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Animals</h3>\\n \\n <p>Thirty dogs presenting for acute abdominal disease. Eligibility included suspicion for free peritoneal effusion and the ability to stand.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Interventions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Dogs underwent standing abdominal POCUS, right lateral abdominal POCUS, and a full abdominal ultrasound. We originally had nothing listed. It now includes all three ultrasound evaluations that were performed for each patient.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Measurements and Main Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients underwent both a right lateral and standing abdominal POCUS via a previously described abdominal focused assessment with sonography for trauma (A-FASTrl and A-FASTs, respectively) technique in a randomized and sequential order followed by a full abdominal ultrasound (AUS-full). The A-FASTs examination included a right flank location in addition to the following standard views: subxiphoid, left flank, urinary bladder, and umbilicus. Five-second cine loops were obtained at each location for each examination and reviewed in the order they were obtained. Locations for both A-FAST exams were interrogated in the same order every time. The cine loops were scored for the degree of peritoneal effusion based on a previously published abdominal fluid scoring system by a board-certified radiologist, radiology resident, and radiology intern. The overall abdominal fluid score (AFS) was compared to a subjective full abdominal ultrasound score given by a board-certified radiologist. Six dogs had no peritoneal effusion, 13 had a small volume (AFS 1 or 2), and 11 had a moderate to large volume (AFS 3 or 4). Excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient) was found between the A-FASTs and A-FASTrl techniques (0.95, 0.93, 0.94), good agreement between A-FASTs and AUS-full (0.80, 0.77, 0.82), and good agreement between A-FASTrl and AUS-full (0.80, 0.82, 0.84). The interobserver agreement was good (0.87) for the A-FASTs technique and excellent (0.91) for the A-FASTrl technique. Mean observer agreement score was excellent (0.94) when evaluating A-FASTrl to A-FASTs, good (0.86) when evaluating A-FASTs to AUS-full, and good (0.87) when evaluating A-FASTrl to AUS-full.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Performing a standing abdominal POCUS examination may be a valid option for identifying and quantifying peritoneal effusion in situations when a more traditional right lateral approach cannot be performed.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17603,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/vec.13329\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/vec.13329","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估在评估犬腹腔积液时,在腹部护理点超声(POCUS)检查中站立姿势的使用。设计:为期17个月的随机前瞻性研究。设置:单一中心,大学兽医教学医院。动物:30只患有急性腹部疾病的狗。资格包括怀疑有游离腹膜积液和站立能力。干预措施:狗接受了站立腹部POCUS、右侧腹POCUS和全腹部超声检查。我们最初没有列出任何内容。现在,它包括为每位患者进行的所有三次超声评估。测量和主要结果:患者通过先前描述的腹部创伤超声聚焦评估(分别为a-FASTrl和a-FASTs)技术,按照随机和顺序进行右侧和直立腹部POCUS,然后进行全腹部超声(AUS-full)。除了以下标准视图外,A-FASTs检查还包括右侧位置:剑突下、左侧、膀胱和脐。每次检查在每个位置获得5秒的电影回放,并按照获得的顺序进行审查。每次都以相同的顺序询问两次A-FAST考试的地点。由委员会认证的放射科医生、放射科住院医师和放射科实习生根据先前公布的腹腔积液评分系统,对电影回放的腹膜积液程度进行评分。将总腹腔液评分(AFS)与委员会认证的放射科医生给出的主观完整腹部超声评分进行比较。6只狗没有腹腔积液,13只体积较小(AFS 1或2),11只体积中等至较大(AFS 3或4)。A-FASTs和A-FASTrl技术之间有很好的一致性(组内相关系数)(0.95,0.93,0.94),A-FAST和AUS完全一致性(0.80,0.77,0.82),A-FASTrl和AUS全一致性(0.8,0.82,0.84)。当评估A-FASTrl至A-FASTs时,平均观察者一致性得分为优秀(0.94)、当评估A-FASTs至AUS时为良好(0.86),结论:在无法进行更传统的右侧入路的情况下,进行站立腹部POCUS检查可能是识别和量化腹膜积液的有效选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Assessment of a standing position during abdominal point-of-care ultrasound on abdominal fluid score in dogs

Objective

To assess the use of a standing position during abdominal point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) examination when evaluating dogs for peritoneal effusion.

Design

Randomized prospective study over 17 months.

Setting

Single-center, university veterinary teaching hospital.

Animals

Thirty dogs presenting for acute abdominal disease. Eligibility included suspicion for free peritoneal effusion and the ability to stand.

Interventions

Dogs underwent standing abdominal POCUS, right lateral abdominal POCUS, and a full abdominal ultrasound. We originally had nothing listed. It now includes all three ultrasound evaluations that were performed for each patient.

Measurements and Main Results

Patients underwent both a right lateral and standing abdominal POCUS via a previously described abdominal focused assessment with sonography for trauma (A-FASTrl and A-FASTs, respectively) technique in a randomized and sequential order followed by a full abdominal ultrasound (AUS-full). The A-FASTs examination included a right flank location in addition to the following standard views: subxiphoid, left flank, urinary bladder, and umbilicus. Five-second cine loops were obtained at each location for each examination and reviewed in the order they were obtained. Locations for both A-FAST exams were interrogated in the same order every time. The cine loops were scored for the degree of peritoneal effusion based on a previously published abdominal fluid scoring system by a board-certified radiologist, radiology resident, and radiology intern. The overall abdominal fluid score (AFS) was compared to a subjective full abdominal ultrasound score given by a board-certified radiologist. Six dogs had no peritoneal effusion, 13 had a small volume (AFS 1 or 2), and 11 had a moderate to large volume (AFS 3 or 4). Excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient) was found between the A-FASTs and A-FASTrl techniques (0.95, 0.93, 0.94), good agreement between A-FASTs and AUS-full (0.80, 0.77, 0.82), and good agreement between A-FASTrl and AUS-full (0.80, 0.82, 0.84). The interobserver agreement was good (0.87) for the A-FASTs technique and excellent (0.91) for the A-FASTrl technique. Mean observer agreement score was excellent (0.94) when evaluating A-FASTrl to A-FASTs, good (0.86) when evaluating A-FASTs to AUS-full, and good (0.87) when evaluating A-FASTrl to AUS-full.

Conclusion

Performing a standing abdominal POCUS examination may be a valid option for identifying and quantifying peritoneal effusion in situations when a more traditional right lateral approach cannot be performed.

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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
121
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care’s primary aim is to advance the international clinical standard of care for emergency/critical care patients of all species. The journal’s content is relevant to specialist and non-specialist veterinarians practicing emergency/critical care medicine. The journal achieves it aims by publishing descriptions of unique presentation or management; retrospective and prospective evaluations of prognosis, novel diagnosis, or therapy; translational basic science studies with clinical relevance; in depth reviews of pertinent topics; topical news and letters; and regular themed issues. The journal is the official publication of the Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society, the American College of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, the European Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society, and the European College of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care. It is a bimonthly publication with international impact and adheres to currently accepted ethical standards.
期刊最新文献
Fabio Viganó Jennifer J. Devey Issue Information - Prelim AUTHOR INDEX Abstracts from the International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Symposium and the European Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Annual Congress 2024
×
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