ArticleThe ultrasound journal2023
Internal jugular access using pocket ultrasound in a simulated model: comparison between biplane and monoplane visualization techniques.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUltrasound is the current standard for central venous access due to its advantages in efficiency and safety. In-plane and out-of-plane visualization techniques are commonly used, but there is no clear evidence showing an advantage of one technique over the other. The objective of this study was to compare the success and time required for biplane visualization vs. in-plane and out-of-plane techniques in simulated models. METHODOLOGY: Ten emergency medicine specialists participated in 60 simulated events, with randomization of the visualization technique for each event. Each event required intravenous cannulation of a simulated model for jugular venous access, with a maximum of three attempts allowed. The number of attempts required for each event, success of puncture and venous cannulation, frequency of redirection and puncture of the posterior wall, time required to obtain an optimal window, visualize the needle inside the vessel, and passage of the guidewire were recorded. The success ratios and times required for each visualization technique (biplane, in-plane, and out-of-plane) were compared.
resultsCannulation success rate was 100% for all three techniques. Success on the first attempt was 95% for biplane visualization vs. 100% for in-plane and out-of-plane. The median total time for the procedure was higher for biplane visualization (29.9 s) compared to in-plane (25.2 s) and out-of-plane (29 s), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.999). There were no significant differences in cannulation success, needle redirection, or posterior wall puncture frequency between biplane visualization and in-plane and out-of-plane techniques.
conclusionsThis study suggests that biplane visualization with the use of pocket ultrasound for internal jugular cannulation in simulated models did not demonstrate significant differences when compared with in-plane and out-of-plane visualization techniques. Further research with larger sample sizes may be needed to confirm these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.