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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |