Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
CJEM ; 22(5): 708-711, 2020 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32390576

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: It is traditionally taught that the location to place an ultrasound probe to detect a pneumothorax with point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is the anterior chest, given the theory that air will collect at the least dependent area in the supine patient. There is a wide variety of scanning protocols with varying accuracy and completeness. We sought to assess the optimal area to scan for diagnosing pneumothorax by mapping the location of traumatic pneumothorax on computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Patients were selected after a retrospective cohort of adult patients who presented to a regional trauma center with a pneumothorax diagnosed on CT. Data were extracted using a standardized data collection tool, and 20% of charts were reviewed by two reviewers. Predefined zones were used to map the areas of pneumothoraces. Theoretical sensitivity and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. RESULTS: A total of 203 traumatic pneumothoraces were reviewed from 2006 to 2016. The majority of the pneumothoraces were found in an area defined by the para-sternal border and the mid-clavicular line from the inferior aspect of the clavicle to the physiologic lung point (liver on the right, heart on the left). The theoretical sensitivity for pneumothorax of scanning this area was 91.6% (95% CI, 86.9-95%). CONCLUSION: This study suggests any POCUS scanning protocol for traumatic pneumothorax should include an area from the inferior border of the clavicle at the parasternal border down to the liver or cardiac lung points and then the mid clavicular line down to the liver or cardiac lung points.


Asunto(s)
Neumotórax , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Ultrasonografía
2.
J Emerg Med ; 56(1): 70-73, 2019 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30391146

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Parapharyngeal space abscesses (PPSA) are deep-space neck infections that are associated with significant morbidity and, rarely, mortality if not promptly diagnosed and treated. The diagnosis is often difficult, as the clinical presentation can mimic peritonsillar abscesses (PTA). Transoral point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) may be a useful tool to help distinguish PTAs from other deep-space infections such as PPSAs. CASE REPORT: A woman presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with fever, sore throat, trismus, and unilateral tonsillar swelling from a walk-in clinic with a preliminary diagnosis of PTA for drainage. A POCUS performed by the emergency medicine resident in the ED demonstrated normal tonsils. However, it revealed evidence of a PPSA. A computed tomography scan was performed, which confirmed the diagnosis. The patient was admitted to the otolaryngology service for antibiotics and steroids, with subsequent improvement and discharge home. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: In this case, the use of POCUS in the ED avoided an unnecessary invasive procedure, and facilitated the correct diagnosis of an uncommon condition.


Asunto(s)
Absceso/diagnóstico , Faringe/anomalías , Ultrasonografía/métodos , Adulto , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Drenaje/métodos , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/organización & administración , Femenino , Humanos , Cuello/anomalías , Cuello/fisiopatología , Faringitis/etiología , Faringe/diagnóstico por imagen , Sistemas de Atención de Punto/normas , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos , Ultrasonografía/tendencias
3.
Cureus ; 9(6): e1324, 2017 Jun 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28690957

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a novel technique for the assessment of jugular venous pressure. Distance education may allow for efficient dissemination of this technique. We compared online learning to a live course for teaching ultrasonography jugular venous pressure (u-JVP) to determine if these teaching methods yielded different levels of comfort with and use of u-JVP. METHODS: This was an interventional trial of Canadian emergency physicians who had taken a basic POCUS course. The participants were in one of three Groups: online learning (Group OL), live teaching (Group LT), control (Group C). Group LT participants also took an advanced course prior to the study that included instruction in u-JVP. The participants who took the basic course were randomized to Group OL or Group C. Group OL was subject to the intervention, online learning. Group C only received an article citation regarding u-JVP. Questionnaires were completed before and after the intervention. The primary outcome was physician self-reported use and comfort with the technique of u-JVP after online learning compared to live teaching. RESULTS: Of the 287 advanced course participants, 42 completed the questionnaires (Group LT). Of the 3303 basic course participants, 47 who were assigned to Group OL completed the questionnaires and 47 from Group C completed the questionnaires. Use of u-JVP increased significantly in Group OL (from 15% to 55%) and Group C (from 21% to 47%) with the intervention. The comfort with use did not differ between Group LT and Group OL (p=0.14). The frequency of use remained higher in Group LT than Group OL (p=0.07). CONCLUSION: Online learning increases the use and comfort with performing u-JVP for emergency physicians with prior POCUS experience. Although the comfort with use of u-JVP was similar in Groups LT and OL, online learning appears to yield levels of use that are less than those of a live course.

4.
Cureus ; 8(7): e674, 2016 Jul 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27551652

RESUMEN

Introduction Closed reduction of distal radius fractures (CRDRF) is a commonly performed emergency department (ED) procedure. The use of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) to diagnose fractures and guide reduction has previously been described. The primary objective of this study was to determine if the addition of PoCUS to CRDRF changed the perception of successful initial reduction. This was measured by the rate of further reduction attempts based on PoCUS following the initial clinical determination of achievement of best possible reduction. Methods  We performed a multicenter prospective cohort study, using a convenience sample of adult ED patients presenting with a distal radius fracture to five Canadian EDs. All study physicians underwent standardized PoCUS training for fractures. Standard clinically-guided best possible fracture reduction was initially performed. PoCUS was then used to assess the reduction adequacy. Repeat reduction was performed if deemed indicated. A post-reduction radiograph was then performed. Clinician impression of reduction adequacy was scored on a 5 point Likert scale following the initial clinically-guided reduction and following each PoCUS scan and the post-reduction radiograph. Results  There were 131 patients with 132 distal radius fractures. Twelve cases were excluded prior to analysis. There was no significant difference in the assessment of the initial reduction status by PoCUS as compared to the clinical exam (mean score: 3.8 vs. 3.9; p = 0.370; OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.72; p = 0.87). Significantly fewer cases fell into the uncertain category with PoCUS than with clinical assessment (2 vs 12; p = 0.008). Repeat reduction was performed in 49 patients (41.2%). Repeat reduction led to a significant improvement (p < 0.001) in the PoCUS determined adequacy of reduction (mean score: 4.3 vs 3.1; p < 0.001). In this group, the odds ratio for adequate vs. uncertain or inadequate reduction assessment using PoCUS was 12.5 (95% CI 3.42 to 45.7; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the assessment of reduction by PoCUS vs. radiograph. Conclusions PoCUS-guided fracture reduction leads to repeat reduction attempts in approximately 40% of cases and enhances certainty regarding reduction adequacy when the clinical assessment is unclear.

6.
CJEM ; 17(1): 74-88, 2015 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25961081

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Emergency medicine point-of-care ultrasonography (EM-PoCUS) is a core competency for residents in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and College of Family Physicians of Canada emergency medicine (EM) training programs. Although EM-PoCUS fellowships are currently offered in Canada, there is little consensus regarding what training should be included in a Canadian EM-PoCUS fellowship curriculum or how this contrasts with the training received in an EM residency.Objectives To conduct a systematic needs assessment of major stakeholders to define the essential elements necessary for a Canadian EM-PoCUS fellowship training curriculum. METHODS: We carried out a national survey of experts in EM-PoCUS, EM residency program directors, and EM residents. Respondents were asked to identify competencies deemed either nonessential to EM practice, essential for general EM practice, essential for advanced EM practice, or essential for EM-PoCUS fellowship trained (''expert'') practice. RESULTS: The response rate was 81% (351 of 435). PoCUS was deemed essential to general EM practice for basic cardiac, aortic, trauma, and procedural imaging. PoCUS was deemed essential to advanced EM practice in undifferentiated symptomatology, advanced chest pathologies, and advanced procedural applications. Expert-level PoCUS competencies were identified for administrative, pediatric, and advanced gynecologic applications. Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated that there was a need for EM-PoCUS fellowships, with an ideal length of 6 months. CONCLUSION: This is the first needs assessment of major stakeholders in Canada to identify competencies for expert training in EM-PoCUS. The competencies should form the basis for EM-PoCUS fellowship programs in Canada.


Asunto(s)
Competencia Clínica , Medicina de Emergencia/educación , Internado y Residencia , Pediatría/educación , Médicos/normas , Sistemas de Atención de Punto , Canadá , Curriculum , Humanos
8.
CJEM ; 8(3): 170-4, 2006 May.
Artículo en Inglés, Francés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17320011
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA