Post-Procedure Perforation Rates in Ultrasound Transducer Covers Used for Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Procedures in Emergency Medicine: A Comparison Between Polyurethane Covers and Polyethylene Covers

Q3 Medicine
James Rippey, Fergus Morris, Christopher Moseley, John Sowerby, Luke Chiverton, Jeremy Mason
{"title":"Post-Procedure Perforation Rates in Ultrasound Transducer Covers Used for Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Procedures in Emergency Medicine: A Comparison Between Polyurethane Covers and Polyethylene Covers","authors":"James Rippey,&nbsp;Fergus Morris,&nbsp;Christopher Moseley,&nbsp;John Sowerby,&nbsp;Luke Chiverton,&nbsp;Jeremy Mason","doi":"10.1002/ajum.70025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The use of sterile transducer covers for ultrasound-guided percutaneous procedures in Emergency Medicine is common. The guidance on how transducers should be disinfected post-procedure is much debated and has considerable cost and logistical implications. The perforation rate of transducer covers when used for percutaneous procedures in the Emergency Department setting has not previously been explored and could impact disinfection recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>This pragmatic prospective observational cohort study quantifies and compares the perforation rates of two different transducer cover types in a single Emergency Department. Details on the patient, procedure, and operator were recorded, and transducer cover perforation was retrospectively assessed by pouring a litre of water into each cover and recording details of any leakage.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Polyethylene transducer covers had a post-procedure perforation rate of 15.1%, more than 6 times that of polyurethane transducer covers which had a perforation rate of 2.4%. The study also shows operators are largely unaware of this perforation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Given the post-procedure perforation rates identified, relying solely on the transducer cover as the means of infection control appears unwise, particularly as the operator is largely unaware of perforation occurring. Differences in transducer cover construction affects perforation rate. However, the chronology and aetiology of the damage are not clarified in this study, neither was resultant transducer contamination evaluated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This single centre observational study demonstrated significant variation in post-procedure perforation rates of two different transducer covers from a single manufacturer. Further research is required to determine the optimal probe cover and disinfection regime for infection control.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36517,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":"28 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajum.70025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The use of sterile transducer covers for ultrasound-guided percutaneous procedures in Emergency Medicine is common. The guidance on how transducers should be disinfected post-procedure is much debated and has considerable cost and logistical implications. The perforation rate of transducer covers when used for percutaneous procedures in the Emergency Department setting has not previously been explored and could impact disinfection recommendations.

Method

This pragmatic prospective observational cohort study quantifies and compares the perforation rates of two different transducer cover types in a single Emergency Department. Details on the patient, procedure, and operator were recorded, and transducer cover perforation was retrospectively assessed by pouring a litre of water into each cover and recording details of any leakage.

Results

Polyethylene transducer covers had a post-procedure perforation rate of 15.1%, more than 6 times that of polyurethane transducer covers which had a perforation rate of 2.4%. The study also shows operators are largely unaware of this perforation.

Discussion

Given the post-procedure perforation rates identified, relying solely on the transducer cover as the means of infection control appears unwise, particularly as the operator is largely unaware of perforation occurring. Differences in transducer cover construction affects perforation rate. However, the chronology and aetiology of the damage are not clarified in this study, neither was resultant transducer contamination evaluated.

Conclusion

This single centre observational study demonstrated significant variation in post-procedure perforation rates of two different transducer covers from a single manufacturer. Further research is required to determine the optimal probe cover and disinfection regime for infection control.

Abstract Image

急诊医学超声引导经皮手术中超声换能器套的术后穿孔率:聚氨酯套与聚乙烯套的比较
在急诊医学中,使用无菌换能器盖进行超声引导的经皮手术是很常见的。关于换能器应如何在手术后消毒的指导意见存在很大争议,并且涉及相当大的成本和后勤问题。在急诊科进行经皮手术时,换能器盖的穿孔率以前没有研究过,可能会影响消毒建议。方法本实用前瞻性观察队列研究量化并比较了同一急诊科两种不同换能器盖类型的穿孔率。记录患者、手术过程和操作人员的详细信息,并通过向每个换能器盖倒入一升水并记录任何泄漏的细节,回顾性地评估换能器盖穿孔情况。结果聚乙烯换能器盖术后穿孔率为15.1%,是聚氨酯换能器盖术后穿孔率2.4%的6倍以上。研究还表明,作业者在很大程度上没有意识到这种射孔。鉴于已确定的术后穿孔率,仅依靠换能器盖作为感染控制手段似乎是不明智的,特别是当操作人员在很大程度上没有意识到穿孔的发生。换能器盖结构的不同会影响射孔率。然而,在这项研究中,损伤的时间和病因并没有明确,也没有评估由此产生的换能器污染。结论:该单中心观察性研究表明,同一厂家生产的两种不同换能器盖术后穿孔率存在显著差异。需要进一步研究以确定感染控制的最佳探针覆盖和消毒制度。
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
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
×
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