Evaluation of a novel out-of-plane needle guide
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, ISSN: 1550-9613, Vol: 37, Issue: 3, Page: 543-549
2018
- 9Citations
- 18Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- CrossRef8
- Captures18
- Readers18
- 18
Article Description
Objectives-Most ultrasound-guided regional procedures use an in-plane approach. Out-of-plane approaches may be desirable in some situations but can be difficult because of an inability to visualize the needle until it intersects the plane of the ultrasonic beam. Here we present a novel out-of-plane needle guide, using a retreating depth stop, and compare its performance with unguided in-plane and out-of-plane techniques. Methods-First- and third-year medical students with no or minimal ultrasound experience were recruited for the study. After a brief training session on in-plane and out-of-plane needling techniques, as well as use of the retreating-stop needle guide, they attempted to place a needle as close as possible to a target embedded in porcine tissue. The total time to complete the procedure was measured. Accuracy was measured by a skilled sonographer, who identified the needle tip and measured the distance to the target. The data were tested for significance using an analysis of variance. Results-The mean total time spent differed significantly between groups (novel needle guide, 34 seconds; in-plane, 120 seconds; out-of-plane, 113 seconds; P=.021). Needle proximity was on average more accurate with the needle guide, although this difference was not statistically significant (novel needle guide, 8mm; in-plane, 15mm; out-of-plane, 14 mm; P=.289). Conclusions-In relatively inexperienced sonographers, the retreating-stop needle guide reduced the procedure time compared with in-plane and out-of-plane techniques. No significant changes in needling accuracy were observed.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know