Real-time Ultrasound-guided Lumbar Puncture: A Comparison of Two Techniques Using Simulation.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Kara Samsel, David Wasiak, Elaine Situ-LaCasse, Srikar Adhikari, Josie Acuña
{"title":"Real-time Ultrasound-guided Lumbar Puncture: A Comparison of Two Techniques Using Simulation.","authors":"Kara Samsel, David Wasiak, Elaine Situ-LaCasse, Srikar Adhikari, Josie Acuña","doi":"10.5811/westjem.21163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The current literature on the use of real-time ultrasound-guidance for lumbar punctures (LP) is limited. Two techniques have been described: the paramedian sagittal oblique (PSO); and the transverse interlaminar (TL) approach. Our objectives in this study were to compare the procedure outcomes between these two techniques and assess the ability of emergency physicians to perform ultrasound-guided LPs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective study whose participants included emergency physicians. Participants were randomized into either Group P (PSO technique) or Group T (TL technique). After a didactic session, participants then performed an ultrasound-guided LP on a training manikin, during which we collected procedure data. A survey was administered after completion of the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 participants were included, 16 in Group P and 15 in Group T. Most participants (90.3%) successfully performed the procedure, without a statistical difference between Group P and Group T (15/16 vs 13/15, P = 0.95). Group T required a longer average time to complete the procedure (176.7 ± 140.4 seconds [s] vs 311.2 ± 202.3 s, P = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference between Group P and Group T with regard to average time needed to obtain the required ultrasound view (18.3 ± 14.6 s vs 35.1 ± 32.9 s, P = 0.09); number of needle redirections; total number of needle passes; first puncture success; number of participants who advanced the needle without visualization of the tip (13/16 vs 14/15, P = 0.64); penetration of the anterior dura; and needle contact with bone. The Likert-style questionnaire responses (reported on a 1-10 scale) revealed no difference between Group P and Group T as to perceived difficulty of finding the required ultrasound view (3 [interquartile range (IQR) 2-5) vs 5 (IQR 3-6.5), P = 0.10), perceived difficulty of needle tracking, or rating of the needle view when entering the intrathecal space. However, Group T reported a higher overall perceived level of difficulty (4 [IQR 3-5] vs 6 (IQR 5.5-7.5), P= 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study suggests emergency physicians can be trained to use ultrasound-guidance for lumbar puncture in the simulation setting without significantly prohibitive training. Both techniques were performed with high success rates. There may be a preference for implementing the paramedian sagittal oblique approach over the transverse interlaminar.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"26 3","pages":"737-742"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12208092/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.21163","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The current literature on the use of real-time ultrasound-guidance for lumbar punctures (LP) is limited. Two techniques have been described: the paramedian sagittal oblique (PSO); and the transverse interlaminar (TL) approach. Our objectives in this study were to compare the procedure outcomes between these two techniques and assess the ability of emergency physicians to perform ultrasound-guided LPs.

Methods: This was a prospective study whose participants included emergency physicians. Participants were randomized into either Group P (PSO technique) or Group T (TL technique). After a didactic session, participants then performed an ultrasound-guided LP on a training manikin, during which we collected procedure data. A survey was administered after completion of the procedure.

Results: A total of 31 participants were included, 16 in Group P and 15 in Group T. Most participants (90.3%) successfully performed the procedure, without a statistical difference between Group P and Group T (15/16 vs 13/15, P = 0.95). Group T required a longer average time to complete the procedure (176.7 ± 140.4 seconds [s] vs 311.2 ± 202.3 s, P = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference between Group P and Group T with regard to average time needed to obtain the required ultrasound view (18.3 ± 14.6 s vs 35.1 ± 32.9 s, P = 0.09); number of needle redirections; total number of needle passes; first puncture success; number of participants who advanced the needle without visualization of the tip (13/16 vs 14/15, P = 0.64); penetration of the anterior dura; and needle contact with bone. The Likert-style questionnaire responses (reported on a 1-10 scale) revealed no difference between Group P and Group T as to perceived difficulty of finding the required ultrasound view (3 [interquartile range (IQR) 2-5) vs 5 (IQR 3-6.5), P = 0.10), perceived difficulty of needle tracking, or rating of the needle view when entering the intrathecal space. However, Group T reported a higher overall perceived level of difficulty (4 [IQR 3-5] vs 6 (IQR 5.5-7.5), P= 0.01).

Conclusion: This study suggests emergency physicians can be trained to use ultrasound-guidance for lumbar puncture in the simulation setting without significantly prohibitive training. Both techniques were performed with high success rates. There may be a preference for implementing the paramedian sagittal oblique approach over the transverse interlaminar.

实时超声引导腰椎穿刺:两种模拟技术的比较。
目前关于实时超声引导腰椎穿刺(LP)的文献是有限的。有两种技术被描述:旁位矢状斜位(PSO);和横向层间入路。我们在这项研究中的目的是比较这两种技术的手术结果,并评估急诊医生进行超声引导LPs的能力。方法:这是一项前瞻性研究,其参与者包括急诊医生。参与者随机分为P组(PSO技术)和T组(TL技术)。在一个教学课程后,参与者在一个训练模型上进行了超声引导的LP,在此期间我们收集了手术数据。手术完成后进行了一次调查。结果:共纳入31例患者,P组16例,T组15例,绝大多数患者(90.3%)成功完成手术,P组与T组差异无统计学意义(15/16 vs 13/15, P = 0.95)。T组平均完成时间较长(176.7±140.4秒[s] vs 311.2±202.3秒,P = 0.04)。P组与T组获得所需超声显像所需平均时间(18.3±14.6 s vs 35.1±32.9 s, P = 0.09)差异无统计学意义;针重定向次数;针道总数;首先穿刺成功;在没有看到针尖的情况下推进针头的参与者人数(13/16 vs 14/15, P = 0.64);穿透前硬脑膜;针头与骨头接触。李克特式问卷回答(以1-10的量表报告)显示,P组和T组在发现所需超声视图的感知难度(3[四分位数范围(IQR) 2-5) vs 5 (IQR 3-6.5), P = 0.10),针头跟踪的感知难度或进入鞘内间隙时的针视图评级方面没有差异。然而,T组报告了更高的总体感知难度水平(4 [IQR 3-5] vs 6 (IQR 5.5-7.5), P= 0.01)。结论:本研究提示急诊医师可以在没有明显禁禁性训练的情况下,在模拟环境下使用超声引导进行腰椎穿刺。这两种技术的成功率都很高。相对于横椎间层,可能更倾向于采用旁正中矢状斜入路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信