ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2025
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.
Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.