ReviewDer Anaesthesist2016
[Hygiene aspects in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [SBA 2020: Regional anesthesia safety recommendations update].Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Pooled it
- Optimizing Ultrasound Probe Disinfection for Healthcare-Associated Infection Control: A Comparative Analysis of Disinfectant Efficacy.Microorganisms · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSterile and clean working conditions are one of the keystones of medical practice and this is also true for ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia. The routine clinical practice in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia does not always comply with the principles of sterile and clean working conditions in medicine: therefore, patients are exposed to potential hazards regarding the transmission of pathogens via the ultrasound equipment.
objectiveThis article deals with the question of whether sterile working conditions in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia are a relevant topic with medical and economic implications. Is it possible to implement the general recommendations for sterile working conditions in ultrasonography for the specific application of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia? MATERIAL AND
methodsA search of the available literature and published guidelines in the field of sterile working conditions with ultrasound was carried out.
resultsThe association between cross-infections and ultrasound equipment is undeniable. Many methods for cleansing and disinfection of ultrasound equipment have been published. All these methods are associated with advantages and disadvantages. The direct sterilization of ultrasound probes with high-percentage alcohol can damage ultrasound probes (especially linear). The use of self-adhesive sterile ultrasound probe covers is a practical method to achieve sterile working conditions in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia.
conclusionThe use of sterile ultrasound probe covers and sterile ultrasound contact media is an important prerequisite to avoid cross-infection between patients. An appropriate scientific evaluation should serve as evidence in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27142364What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.