Geoffrey Hayward, Henry Huang, Bethany R Regan, Maria-Chiara Bellomo, Mark C Kendall
{"title":"Comparing static versus dynamic ultrasound techniques: A randomized pilot trial of novice and advanced users.","authors":"Geoffrey Hayward, Henry Huang, Bethany R Regan, Maria-Chiara Bellomo, Mark C Kendall","doi":"10.1177/11297298251315237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrasound training requires proper instruction and guidance tailored both to novice and advanced ultrasound users. The aim of the current investigation was to compare the performance of novice and advanced sonographers using a tofu model for IV cannula placement using either ultrasound static (US) or dynamic (UD) techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty volunteers were allocated to either the novice or advanced group according to prior ultrasonography experience. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the US or UD group. A modified version of the global rating scale was used to assess performance. The primary outcome was the assessment scale composite score. Secondary outcomes included time to procedure completion and the number of needle passes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the novice cohort, the US group scored significantly higher than participants in the UD, median difference 9 (95% CI: 0-19), <i>p</i> = 0.01. In the advanced cohort, there was no difference in the performance score. Advanced participants performed the UD technique in less time than those using the US technique, 28.5 s (IQR 24-40) vs 42.5 s (IQR 30-55), median difference 14 (95% CI: 1-27), <i>p</i> = 0.02, respectively. Novices showed no difference in time to completion for either technique. In the novice cohort, the number of needle passes was less in the US group, median of 1 (IQR 1-2) compared to the UD group, median of 2 (IQR 1-3.75), median difference -1 (95% CI: -2 to 0), <i>p</i> = 0.03. There was no difference in the number of needle passes in either techniques involving the advanced users.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the real time UD method, the US technique for intravenous cannulation is more fitted for novice users and should be considered more widely as the introductory technique to improve their procedural efficiency of ultrasound guided intravenous cannulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":56113,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Access","volume":" ","pages":"11297298251315237"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298251315237","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:超声培训需要针对新手和高级超声用户进行适当的指导。本次调查的目的是比较新手和高级超声技师在使用静态(US)或动态(UD)超声技术将静脉插管置入豆腐模型时的表现:80名志愿者根据之前的超声波检查经验被分配到新手组或高级组。参与者被随机分配(1:1)到 US 或 UD 组。采用改良版的总体评分量表来评估表现。主要结果是评估量表综合得分。次要结果包括手术完成时间和穿刺针数:在新手组中,US 组的得分明显高于 UD 组,中位数差异为 9(95% CI:0-19),P = 0.01。在高级组中,表现得分没有差异。高级学员使用 UD 技术的时间比使用 US 技术的学员短,分别为 28.5 秒(IQR 24-40)vs 42.5 秒(IQR 30-55),中位数差异为 14(95% CI:1-27),p = 0.02。新手在两种技术的完成时间上没有差异。在新手队列中,US 组的穿刺针数较少,中位数为 1(IQR 1-2),而 UD 组的中位数为 2(IQR 1-3.75),中位数差异为-1(95% CI:-2 至 0),P = 0.03。在高级用户中,两种技术的进针次数没有差异:结论:与实时 UD 方法相比,超声引导静脉插管技术更适合新手使用,应更广泛地考虑将其作为入门技术,以提高超声引导静脉插管的手术效率。
Comparing static versus dynamic ultrasound techniques: A randomized pilot trial of novice and advanced users.
Background: Ultrasound training requires proper instruction and guidance tailored both to novice and advanced ultrasound users. The aim of the current investigation was to compare the performance of novice and advanced sonographers using a tofu model for IV cannula placement using either ultrasound static (US) or dynamic (UD) techniques.
Methods: Eighty volunteers were allocated to either the novice or advanced group according to prior ultrasonography experience. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the US or UD group. A modified version of the global rating scale was used to assess performance. The primary outcome was the assessment scale composite score. Secondary outcomes included time to procedure completion and the number of needle passes.
Results: In the novice cohort, the US group scored significantly higher than participants in the UD, median difference 9 (95% CI: 0-19), p = 0.01. In the advanced cohort, there was no difference in the performance score. Advanced participants performed the UD technique in less time than those using the US technique, 28.5 s (IQR 24-40) vs 42.5 s (IQR 30-55), median difference 14 (95% CI: 1-27), p = 0.02, respectively. Novices showed no difference in time to completion for either technique. In the novice cohort, the number of needle passes was less in the US group, median of 1 (IQR 1-2) compared to the UD group, median of 2 (IQR 1-3.75), median difference -1 (95% CI: -2 to 0), p = 0.03. There was no difference in the number of needle passes in either techniques involving the advanced users.
Conclusion: Compared to the real time UD method, the US technique for intravenous cannulation is more fitted for novice users and should be considered more widely as the introductory technique to improve their procedural efficiency of ultrasound guided intravenous cannulation.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Vascular Access (JVA) is issued six times per year; it considers the publication of original manuscripts dealing with clinical and laboratory investigations in the fast growing field of vascular access. In addition reviews, case reports and clinical trials are welcome, as well as papers dedicated to more practical aspects covering new devices and techniques.
All contributions, coming from all over the world, undergo the peer-review process.
The Journal of Vascular Access is divided into independent sections, each led by Editors of the highest scientific level:
• Dialysis
• Oncology
• Interventional radiology
• Nutrition
• Nursing
• Intensive care
Correspondence related to published papers is also welcome.