Cargando…

Comparison of Metallic Foreign-Body Removal between Dynamic Ultrasound and Static Radiography in a Pigs' Feet Model

INTRODUCTION: We compared the immediate cosmetic outcome of metallic foreign-body removal by emergency medicine (EM) residents with ultrasound guidance and conventional radiography. METHODS: This single-blinded, randomized, crossover study evaluated the ability of EM residents to remove metallic pin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manson, William C, Ryan, James G, Ladner, Heidi, Gupta, Sanjey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3236155/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22224139
http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2010.6.1885
_version_ 1782218692793204736
author Manson, William C
Ryan, James G
Ladner, Heidi
Gupta, Sanjey
author_facet Manson, William C
Ryan, James G
Ladner, Heidi
Gupta, Sanjey
author_sort Manson, William C
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: We compared the immediate cosmetic outcome of metallic foreign-body removal by emergency medicine (EM) residents with ultrasound guidance and conventional radiography. METHODS: This single-blinded, randomized, crossover study evaluated the ability of EM residents to remove metallic pins embedded in pigs' feet. Before the experiment, we embedded 1.5-cm metallic pins into numbered pigs' feet. We randomly assigned 14 EM residents to use either ultrasound or radiography to help remove the foreign body. Residents had minimal ultrasound experience. After a brief lecture, we provided residents with a scalpel, laceration kit, a bedside portable ultrasound machine, nipple markers, paper clips, a dedicated radiograph technician, and radiograph machine 20 feet away. After removal, 3 board-certified emergency physicians, who were blinded to the study group, evaluated the soft-tissue model by using a standardized form. They recorded incision length and cosmetic appearance on the Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: In total, 28 foreign bodies were removed. No significant difference in the time of removal (P = 0.12), cosmetic appearance (P = 0.96), or incision length (P = 0.76) was found. CONCLUSION: This study showed no difference between bedside ultrasound and radiography in assisting EM residents with metallic foreign-body removal from soft tissue. No significant difference was found in removal time or cosmetic outcome when comparing ultrasound with radiography.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3236155
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32361552012-01-05 Comparison of Metallic Foreign-Body Removal between Dynamic Ultrasound and Static Radiography in a Pigs' Feet Model Manson, William C Ryan, James G Ladner, Heidi Gupta, Sanjey West J Emerg Med Ultrasound INTRODUCTION: We compared the immediate cosmetic outcome of metallic foreign-body removal by emergency medicine (EM) residents with ultrasound guidance and conventional radiography. METHODS: This single-blinded, randomized, crossover study evaluated the ability of EM residents to remove metallic pins embedded in pigs' feet. Before the experiment, we embedded 1.5-cm metallic pins into numbered pigs' feet. We randomly assigned 14 EM residents to use either ultrasound or radiography to help remove the foreign body. Residents had minimal ultrasound experience. After a brief lecture, we provided residents with a scalpel, laceration kit, a bedside portable ultrasound machine, nipple markers, paper clips, a dedicated radiograph technician, and radiograph machine 20 feet away. After removal, 3 board-certified emergency physicians, who were blinded to the study group, evaluated the soft-tissue model by using a standardized form. They recorded incision length and cosmetic appearance on the Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: In total, 28 foreign bodies were removed. No significant difference in the time of removal (P = 0.12), cosmetic appearance (P = 0.96), or incision length (P = 0.76) was found. CONCLUSION: This study showed no difference between bedside ultrasound and radiography in assisting EM residents with metallic foreign-body removal from soft tissue. No significant difference was found in removal time or cosmetic outcome when comparing ultrasound with radiography. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine 2011-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3236155/ /pubmed/22224139 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2010.6.1885 Text en the authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Ultrasound
Manson, William C
Ryan, James G
Ladner, Heidi
Gupta, Sanjey
Comparison of Metallic Foreign-Body Removal between Dynamic Ultrasound and Static Radiography in a Pigs' Feet Model
title Comparison of Metallic Foreign-Body Removal between Dynamic Ultrasound and Static Radiography in a Pigs' Feet Model
title_full Comparison of Metallic Foreign-Body Removal between Dynamic Ultrasound and Static Radiography in a Pigs' Feet Model
title_fullStr Comparison of Metallic Foreign-Body Removal between Dynamic Ultrasound and Static Radiography in a Pigs' Feet Model
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Metallic Foreign-Body Removal between Dynamic Ultrasound and Static Radiography in a Pigs' Feet Model
title_short Comparison of Metallic Foreign-Body Removal between Dynamic Ultrasound and Static Radiography in a Pigs' Feet Model
title_sort comparison of metallic foreign-body removal between dynamic ultrasound and static radiography in a pigs' feet model
topic Ultrasound
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3236155/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22224139
http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2010.6.1885
work_keys_str_mv AT mansonwilliamc comparisonofmetallicforeignbodyremovalbetweendynamicultrasoundandstaticradiographyinapigsfeetmodel
AT ryanjamesg comparisonofmetallicforeignbodyremovalbetweendynamicultrasoundandstaticradiographyinapigsfeetmodel
AT ladnerheidi comparisonofmetallicforeignbodyremovalbetweendynamicultrasoundandstaticradiographyinapigsfeetmodel
AT guptasanjey comparisonofmetallicforeignbodyremovalbetweendynamicultrasoundandstaticradiographyinapigsfeetmodel