Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2024
Feasibility of ultraportable US in detecting clinically concerning recurrent pneumothorax in patients with chest trauma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Al Tannir Abdul Hafiz, Pokrzywa Courtney, Murphy Patrick B, Biesboer Elise A, Figueroa Juan, Karam Basil S, DeMoya Marc, Carver Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bedside thoracic ultrasound (US) offers numerous advantages over chest X-ray (CXR) for identification of recurrent pneumothoraces (PTX) after tube thoracostomy (TT) removal. Technologic advancements have led to the development of hand-held devices capable of producing high-quality images termed ultra-portable US (UPUS). We hypothesized that UPUS would be as successful as CXR in detecting post-TT removal PTX and would be preferred by patients.
METHODS: We conducted a single-center prospective, feasibility, study at a level I trauma center investigating the use of UPUS in patients with trauma with TT placement. UPUS images were obtained daily while the TT was in place and post-TT removal (ranging from 1 through 6 hours). A clinically concerning PTX on UPUS was defined as the absence of lung sliding on two or more intercostal spaces. Poststudy Likert surveys were administered to assess patient preferences.
RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were included in the analysis. The majority were men (87%), and the median age was 47 years. Thirty-five patients (36%) had discordant imaging findings. There were 11 clinically concerning PTX, of which 10 (91%) were detected on UPUS and 8 (73%) on CXR. Three patients required an intervention for post-pull PTX, all of whom were identified on UPUS. Eighty-four percent (N=70) of surveyed patients preferred UPUS over CXR with 92% reporting no discomfort with UPUS compared with 49% with CXR.
CONCLUSION: Bedside UPUS is preferred by patients and can successfully identify clinically concerning post-TT removal PTX. Implementation of UPUS as a post-TT removal diagnostic tool is a safe and effective alternative to CXR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic tests or criteria.
METHODS: We conducted a single-center prospective, feasibility, study at a level I trauma center investigating the use of UPUS in patients with trauma with TT placement. UPUS images were obtained daily while the TT was in place and post-TT removal (ranging from 1 through 6 hours). A clinically concerning PTX on UPUS was defined as the absence of lung sliding on two or more intercostal spaces. Poststudy Likert surveys were administered to assess patient preferences.
RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were included in the analysis. The majority were men (87%), and the median age was 47 years. Thirty-five patients (36%) had discordant imaging findings. There were 11 clinically concerning PTX, of which 10 (91%) were detected on UPUS and 8 (73%) on CXR. Three patients required an intervention for post-pull PTX, all of whom were identified on UPUS. Eighty-four percent (N=70) of surveyed patients preferred UPUS over CXR with 92% reporting no discomfort with UPUS compared with 49% with CXR.
CONCLUSION: Bedside UPUS is preferred by patients and can successfully identify clinically concerning post-TT removal PTX. Implementation of UPUS as a post-TT removal diagnostic tool is a safe and effective alternative to CXR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic tests or criteria.