MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Is Bigger Really Better? Comparison of Ultraportable Handheld Ultrasound with Standard Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Evaluating Safe Site Identification and Image Quality prior to Pleurocentesis
Is Bigger Really Better? Comparison of Ultraportable Handheld Ultrasound with Standard Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Evaluating Safe Site Identification and Image Quality prior to Pleurocentesis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Is Bigger Really Better? Comparison of Ultraportable Handheld Ultrasound with Standard Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Evaluating Safe Site Identification and Image Quality prior to Pleurocentesis
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Is Bigger Really Better? Comparison of Ultraportable Handheld Ultrasound with Standard Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Evaluating Safe Site Identification and Image Quality prior to Pleurocentesis
Is Bigger Really Better? Comparison of Ultraportable Handheld Ultrasound with Standard Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Evaluating Safe Site Identification and Image Quality prior to Pleurocentesis

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Is Bigger Really Better? Comparison of Ultraportable Handheld Ultrasound with Standard Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Evaluating Safe Site Identification and Image Quality prior to Pleurocentesis
Is Bigger Really Better? Comparison of Ultraportable Handheld Ultrasound with Standard Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Evaluating Safe Site Identification and Image Quality prior to Pleurocentesis
Journal Article

Is Bigger Really Better? Comparison of Ultraportable Handheld Ultrasound with Standard Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Evaluating Safe Site Identification and Image Quality prior to Pleurocentesis

2020
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background: Pleural effusions remain a common medical problem which often requires diagnostic pleurocentesis to determine the underlying cause. Pleurocentesis is a frequently performed procedure worldwide with improved safety using ultrasound (US) technology. Objectives: This prospective, single-center study evaluated the use of an ultraportable handheld (UPHH) US compared with standard point-of-care (SPOC) US in determining a safe site for pleurocentesis. In addition, US image quality and factors impacting on image quality were assessed using both UPHH and SPOC US. Methods: Paired US assessments were performed by thoracic physicians using UPHH and SPOC US on patients with unilateral pleural effusions to determine a safe site for pleurocentesis (defined as >2 cm of pleural fluid, >2 cm from a solid organ/diaphragm, and <7 cm chest wall depth). Distance measurements for key structures and image quality scores (using a 5-point Likert rating scale) were obtained at the time of US assessment. Factors affecting image quality were analyzed using univariate analysis. Results: In 52 of the 54 included patients (96.3%), UPHH US was able to identify a safe site for pleurocentesis. Distance measurements between UPHH and SPOC US were not statistically different (all <0.5 cm with values of p > 0.05), but image quality was reduced in UPHH compared with SPOC US by 1 point on a 5-point Likert rating scale (p < 0.002). Increasing body mass index was associated with a reduction in image quality in both UPHH and SPOC US (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: Although image quality was lower in UPHH than SPOC US, a safe site was found in 96.3% of patients, which suggests that UPHH US may be a useful tool for diagnostic pleuro­centesis when SPOC US is not available (http://www.anzctr.org.au/, Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, No. ACTRN12618001592235).