Literature DB >> 21425513

A review of the benefits and pitfalls of phantoms in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia.

Graham Hocking1, Simon Hebard, Christopher H Mitchell.   

Abstract

With the growth of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia, so has the requirement for training tools to practice needle guidance skills and evaluate echogenic needles. Ethically, skills in ultrasound-guided needle placement should be gained in a phantom before performance of nerve blocks on patients in clinical practice. However, phantom technology is varied, and critical evaluation of the images is needed to understand their application to clinical use. Needle visibility depends on the echogenicity of the needle relative to the echogenicity of the tissue adjacent the needle. We demonstrate this point using images of echogenic and nonechogenic needles in 5 different phantoms at both shallow angles (20 degrees) and steep angles (45 degrees). The echogenicity of phantoms varies enormously, and this impacts on how needles are visualized. Water is anechoic, making all needles highly visible, but does not fix the needle to allow practice placement. Gelatin phantoms and Blue Phantoms provide tactile feedback but have very low background echogenicity, which greatly exaggerates needle visibility. This makes skill acquisition easier but can lead to false confidence in regard to clinical ability. Fresh-frozen cadavers retain much of the textural feel of live human tissue and are nearly as echogenic. Similar to clinical practice, this makes needles inserted at steep angles practically invisible, unless they are highly echogenic. This review describes the uses and pitfalls of phantoms that have been described or commercially produced.
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21425513     DOI: 10.1097/aap.0b013e31820d4207

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reg Anesth Pain Med        ISSN: 1098-7339            Impact factor:   6.288


  17 in total

1.  Differences in tip visibility and nerve block parameters between two echogenic needles during a simulation study with inexperienced anesthesia trainees.

Authors:  Alper Kilicaslan; Ahmet Topal; Aybars Tavlan; Atilla Erol; Seref Otelcioglu
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  Procedural simulation: medical student preference and value of three task trainers for ultrasound guided regional anesthesia.

Authors:  Shadi Lahham; Taylaur Smith; Jessa Baker; Amanda Purdy; Erica Frumin; Bret Winners; Sean P Wilson; Abdulatif Gari; John C Fox
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2017

3.  EUS Needle Identification Comparison and Evaluation study (with videos).

Authors:  Shou-Jiang Tang; Andreas S Vilmann; Adrian Saftoiu; Wanmei Wang; Costin Teodor Streba; Peter P Fink; Michael Griswold; Ruonan Wu; Christoph F Dietrich; Christian Jenssen; Michael Hocke; Marcus Kantowski; Jürgen Pohl; Paul Fockens; Jouke T Annema; Erik H F M van der Heijden; Roald Flesland Havre; Khanh Do-Cong Pham; Rastislav Kunda; Pierre H Deprez; Jinga Mariana; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Alberto Larghi; Elisabetta Buscarini; Pietro Fusaroli; Maor Lahav; Rajesh Puri; Pramod Kumar Garg; Malay Sharma; Fauze Maluf-Filho; Anand Sahai; William R Brugge; Linda S Lee; Harry R Aslanian; Andrew Y Wang; Vanessa M Shami; Arnold Markowitz; Ali A Siddiqui; Girish Mishra; James M Scheiman; Gerard Isenberg; Uzma D Siddiqui; Raj J Shah; James Buxbaum; Rabindra R Watson; Field F Willingham; Manoop S Bhutani; Michael J Levy; Cynthia Harris; Michael B Wallace; Christian Pállson Nolsøe; Torben Lorentzen; Niels Bang; Sten Mellerup Sørensen; Odd Helge Gilja; Mirko D'Onofrio; Fabio Piscaglia; Norbert Gritzmann; Maija Radzina; Zeno Adrian Sparchez; Paul S Sidhu; Simon Freeman; Timothy C McCowan; Cyrillo Rodrigues de Araujo; Akash Patel; Mohammad Adel Ali; Garth Campbell; Edward Chen; Peter Vilmann
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  A simple, feedback-based simulation model for ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia.

Authors:  Alper Kilicaslan; Ahmet Topal; Aybars Tavlan; Atilla Erol
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2012-07

5.  Ultrasound visibility of regional anesthesia catheters: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Junji Takatani; Naozumi Takeshima; Kentaro Okuda; Tetsuya Uchino; Takayuki Noguchi
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2012-07-24

6.  Ultrasound-guided pediatric vascular cannulation by inexperienced operators: outcomes in a training model.

Authors:  José Manuel López-Álvarez; Olivia Pérez-Quevedo; Joaquín Naya-Esteban; Teresa Ramirez-Lorenzo; Juan Carlos Falcón-González; Dionisio Lorenzo Lorenzo-Villegas
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2021-05-04

Review 7.  Simulation in teaching regional anesthesia: current perspectives.

Authors:  Ankeet D Udani; T Edward Kim; Steven K Howard; Edward R Mariano
Journal:  Local Reg Anesth       Date:  2015-08-11

8.  A low-cost reusable phantom for ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation.

Authors:  Varun Cheruparambath; Sriram Sampath; Lakshmikanthan N Deshikar; Haji Mohammed Ismail; Krishna Bhuvana
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-07

9.  An easily made, low-cost phantom for ultrasound airway exam training and assessment.

Authors:  Kristopher M Schroeder; Jagan Ramamoorthy; Richard E Galgon
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2013-01

10.  Ultrasound a new paradigm in regional anesthesia and pain management.

Authors:  Poupak Rahimzadeh; Seyed Hamid Reza Faiz
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2013-09-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.