OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physician control of needle and syringe during aspiration-injection syringe procedures by comparing the new reciprocating procedure syringe to a traditional conventional syringe. METHODS:Twenty-six physicians were tested for their individual ability to control the reciprocating and conventional syringes in typical aspiration-injection procedures using a novel quantitative needle-based displacement procedure model. Subsequently, the physicians performed 48 clinical aspiration-injection (arthrocentesis) procedures on 32 subjects randomized to thereciprocating or conventional syringes. Clinical outcomes included procedure time, patient pain, and operator satisfaction. Multivariate modeling methods were used to determine the experimental variables in the syringe control model most predictive of clinical outcome measures. RESULTS: In the model system, the reciprocating syringe significantly improved physician control of the syringe and needle, with a 66% reduction in unintended forward penetration (p < 0.001) and a 68% reduction in unintended retraction (p < 0.001). In clinical arthrocentesis, improvements were also noted: 30% reduction in procedure time (p < 0.03), 57% reduction in patient pain (p < 0.001), and a 79% increase in physician satisfaction (p < 0.001). The variables in the experimental system--unintended forward penetration, unintended retraction, and operator satisfaction--independently predicted the outcomes of procedure time, patient pain, and physician satisfaction in the clinical study (p < or = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reciprocating syringe reduces procedure time and patient pain and improves operator satisfaction with the procedure syringe. The reciprocating syringe improves physician performance in both the validated quantitative needle-based displacement model and in real aspiration-injection syringe procedures, including arthrocentesis.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physician control of needle and syringe during aspiration-injection syringe procedures by comparing the new reciprocating procedure syringe to a traditional conventional syringe. METHODS: Twenty-six physicians were tested for their individual ability to control the reciprocating and conventional syringes in typical aspiration-injection procedures using a novel quantitative needle-based displacement procedure model. Subsequently, the physicians performed 48 clinical aspiration-injection (arthrocentesis) procedures on 32 subjects randomized to the reciprocating or conventional syringes. Clinical outcomes included procedure time, patientpain, and operator satisfaction. Multivariate modeling methods were used to determine the experimental variables in the syringe control model most predictive of clinical outcome measures. RESULTS: In the model system, the reciprocating syringe significantly improved physician control of the syringe and needle, with a 66% reduction in unintended forward penetration (p < 0.001) and a 68% reduction in unintended retraction (p < 0.001). In clinical arthrocentesis, improvements were also noted: 30% reduction in procedure time (p < 0.03), 57% reduction in patientpain (p < 0.001), and a 79% increase in physician satisfaction (p < 0.001). The variables in the experimental system--unintended forward penetration, unintended retraction, and operator satisfaction--independently predicted the outcomes of procedure time, patientpain, and physician satisfaction in the clinical study (p < or = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reciprocating syringe reduces procedure time and patientpain and improves operator satisfaction with the procedure syringe. The reciprocating syringe improves physician performance in both the validated quantitative needle-based displacement model and in real aspiration-injection syringe procedures, including arthrocentesis.
Authors: Kye S Park; Andres Peisajovich; Adrian A Michael; Wilmer L Sibbitt; Arthur D Bankhurst Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Luke J Haseler; Randy R Sibbitt; Wilmer L Sibbitt; Adrian A Michael; Charles M Gasparovic; Arthur D Bankhurst Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2010-11-06 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Randy R Sibbitt; Dennis J Palmer; Wilmer L Sibbitt; Arthur D Bankhurst Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2010-11-06 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Suzanne L DeLea; Natalia R Chavez-Chiang; Janet L Poole; Hillary E Norton; Wilmer L Sibbitt; Arthur D Bankhurst Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Lawrence G Kettwich; Wilmer L Sibbitt; N Suzanne Emil; Usman Ashraf; Leslie Sanchez-Goettler; Yumna Thariani; Arthur D Bankhurst Journal: Amyloid Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 7.141
Authors: Natalia R Chavez-Chiang; Wilmer L Sibbitt; Philip A Band; Suzanne L DeLea; Kye S Park; Arthur D Bankhurst Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Tony Makhlouf; N Suzanne Emil; Wilmer L Sibbitt; Roderick A Fields; Arthur D Bankhurst Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Colbert E Chavez-Chiang; Wilmer L Sibbitt; Philip A Band; Natalia R Chavez-Chiang; Suzanne L DeLea; Arthur D Bankhurst Journal: Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol Date: 2011-03-30