Abdul Hafiz Al Tannir, Courtney Pokrzywa, Patrick B Murphy, Elise A Biesboer, Juan Figueroa, Basil S Karam, Marc DeMoya, Thomas Carver
{"title":"Feasibility of ultraportable US in detecting clinically concerning recurrent pneumothorax in patients with chest trauma.","authors":"Abdul Hafiz Al Tannir, Courtney Pokrzywa, Patrick B Murphy, Elise A Biesboer, Juan Figueroa, Basil S Karam, Marc DeMoya, Thomas Carver","doi":"10.1136/tsaco-2024-001464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II, diagnostic tests or criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":23307,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","volume":"9 1","pages":"e001464"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11749396/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2024-001464","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.