Prehospital ultrasound scanning for abdominal free fluid detection in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Focused assessment with sonography for trauma helps detect abdominal free fluid. Prehospital ultrasound scanning is also important because the early diagnosis of hemoperitoneum may reduce the time to definitive treatment in the hospital. This study investigated whether prehospital ultrasound scanning can help detect abdominal free fluid. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this systematic review, relevant databases were searched for studies investigating prehospital ultrasound examinations for abdominal free fluid in trauma patients. The prehospital ultrasound results were compared with computed tomography, surgery, or hospital ultrasound examination data. The pooled sensitivity and specificity values were analyzed using forest plots. The overall predictive power was calculated by the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was performed to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULT: This meta-analysis comprised six studies that included 1356 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity values were 0.596 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.345-0.822) and 0.970 (95% CI = 0.953-0.983), respectively. The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.998. The quality assessment tool showed favorable results. In the GRADE analysis, the quality of evidence was very low for sensitivity and high for specificity when prehospital ultrasound was used for hemoperitoneum diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The specificity of abdominal free fluid detection using prehospital ultrasound examinations in trauma patients was very high.

Comparative effectiveness of ultrasound-guided and anatomic landmark percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound-guided tracheostomy (UGT) and bronchoscope-guided tracheostomy (BGT) have been well compared. However, the differences in benefits between UGT and landmark tracheostomy (LT) have not been addressed and, in particular, lack a detailed meta-analysis. We aimed to compare the first-pass success, complication rate, major bleeding rate, and tracheostomy procedure time between UGT and LT. METHODS: In a systematic review, relevant databases were searched for studies comparing UGT with LT in intubated patients. The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) of first-pass success. The secondary outcomes were the OR of complications, OR of major bleeding, and standardized mean difference (SMD) of the total tracheostomy procedure time. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included three randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and one nonrandomized controlled study (NRS), comprising 474 patients in total. Compared with LT, UGT increased first-pass success (OR: 4.287; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.308 to 7.964) and decreased complications (OR: 0.422; 95% CI: 0.249 to 0.718). However, compared with LT, UGT did not significantly reduce major bleeding (OR: 0.374; 95% CI: 0.112 to 1.251) or the total tracheostomy placement time (SMD: -0.335; 95% CI: -0.842 to 0.172). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with LT, real-time UGT increases first-pass success and decreases complications. However, UGT was not associated with a significant reduction in the major bleeding rate. The total tracheostomy placement time comparison between UGI and LT was inconclusive.