Crossed raised arm position improves the flow of contrast medium in torso contrast-enhanced computed Tomography.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective cohort study examined the effects of the crossed raised arm (CRA) position in contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) on contrast medium influx and image quality relative to the conventional position. METHODS: Contrast medium influx into the collateral veins on CECT images was evaluated in 92 participants. The CT values of the pulmonary artery, descending aorta, and spleen were obtained in both positions and compared. Anatomical changes in the diameters and area of the subclavian vein and costoclavicular distance were also analyzed. RESULTS: Contras 27 and 6 patients in the conventional and CRA positions, respectively. The influx risk ratio in the CRA position versus that in the conventional position was 0.22 (95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.51). Elevations in the median CT value of the pulmonary artery, descending aorta, and spleen in the CRA position were 7.0% (p < .001), 7.4% (p < .001), and 9.8% (p < .001), respectively. Enlargements in the major and minor diameters of the subclavian vein, subclavian vein area, and costoclavicular distance in the CRA position versus those in the conventional position were 19.3% (p < .001), 28.1% (p < .001), 53.6%, and 30.0% (p < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: The CRA position effectively prevented contrast medium influx into the collateral veins due to SVS and increased CT values in the target organs in CECT. The diameters and area of the subclavian vein and costoclavicular distance were enlarged at the thoracic outlet, which improved the flow of the contrast medium into the targeted organs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The CRA position can contribute to obtaining better CECT images during common clinical assessments at no additional cost.

Randomized clinical trial of single skin sterilization with a povidone-iodine applicator versus conventional skin sterilization in abdominal surgery.

Background: The efficacy of widely used povidone-iodine applicators for skin sterilization in abdominal surgery is unclear. The aim of this trial was to evaluate whether sterilization with a povidone-iodine applicator was not inferior to a conventional sterilization method. Methods: Patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery were assigned randomly to receive single sterilization with the applicator or conventional sterilization. The primary endpoint was wound infection rate. Secondary endpoints were rate of organ/space surgical-site infection (SSI), adverse effects of povidone-iodine, amount of povidone-iodine used and total cost of sterilization. Results: Of 498 patients eligible for the study between April 2015 and September 2017, 240 were assigned and analysed in the applicator group and 246 in the conventional group. Wound infection was detected in 16 patients (6·7 per cent) in the applicator group and 16 (6·5 per cent) in the conventional group (absolute difference 0·0016 (90 per cent c.i. -0·037 to 0·040) per cent; P = 0·014 for non-inferiority). There was no difference between the groups in the organ/space SSI rate (11 patients (4·6 per cent) in the applicator group and 16 (6·5 per cent) in the conventional group. Both the amount of povidone-iodine used and the total cost of sterilization were higher in the conventional group than in the applicator group (median 76·7 versus 25 ml respectively, P < 0·001; median €7·0 versus €6·4, P < 0·001). Skin irritation was detected in three patients in the conventional group. Conclusion: In abdominal surgery, this povidone-iodine applicator was not inferior to conventional sterilization in terms of the wound infection rate, and it is cheaper. Registration number: UMIN000018231 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/).