PURPOSE: Ultrasound is commonly used in urology. Technical advances with reduced size and cost led to diffusion of small ultrasound devices to many clinical settings. Even so, most ultrasound studies are performed by non-urologists. We aimed to evaluate the utility of a pocket-size ultrasound device (Vscan™ GE Healthcare) and the quality of urologist performed study. METHODS: Three consecutive studies were performed: (1) a urologist using the pocket ultrasound, (2) a sonographist using the pocket ultrasound, and (3) a sonographist using a standard ultrasound device. Thirty-six patients were evaluated with a basic urologic ultrasound study. An excepted deviation between studies was preset for numeric parameters and t test performed. Ordinal parameters were analyzed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Kidney length, renal pelvis length, renal cyst diameter, post-void residual and prostate volume (transabdominal) differences were found to be insignificant when comparing a urologist pocket ultrasound study to a sonographist standard ultrasound study (P = 0.15; P = 0.21; P = 0.81; P = 0.32; P = 0.07, respectively). Hydronpehrosis evaluation (none, mild, moderate and severe) and the presence of ureteral jet signs conferred a high inter-observer agreement when comparing the above studies using the Cohen's kappa coefficient (K = 0.63; K = 0.62, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Urologist performed pocket ultrasound study is valid in evaluating the upper and lower urinary tract and is practical in many clinical scenarios. The urologic stethoscope is now becoming a reality within reach.
PURPOSE: Ultrasound is commonly used in urology. Technical advances with reduced size and cost led to diffusion of small ultrasound devices to many clinical settings. Even so, most ultrasound studies are performed by non-urologists. We aimed to evaluate the utility of a pocket-size ultrasound device (Vscan™ GE Healthcare) and the quality of urologist performed study. METHODS: Three consecutive studies were performed: (1) a urologist using the pocket ultrasound, (2) a sonographist using the pocket ultrasound, and (3) a sonographist using a standard ultrasound device. Thirty-six patients were evaluated with a basic urologic ultrasound study. An excepted deviation between studies was preset for numeric parameters and t test performed. Ordinal parameters were analyzed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Kidney length, renal pelvis length, renal cyst diameter, post-void residual and prostate volume (transabdominal) differences were found to be insignificant when comparing a urologist pocket ultrasound study to a sonographist standard ultrasound study (P = 0.15; P = 0.21; P = 0.81; P = 0.32; P = 0.07, respectively). Hydronpehrosis evaluation (none, mild, moderate and severe) and the presence of ureteral jet signs conferred a high inter-observer agreement when comparing the above studies using the Cohen's kappa coefficient (K = 0.63; K = 0.62, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Urologist performed pocket ultrasound study is valid in evaluating the upper and lower urinary tract and is practical in many clinical scenarios. The urologic stethoscope is now becoming a reality within reach.
Authors: J M Troyano Luque; O Ferrer-Roca; M J Barco-Marcellán; R Sabatel López; T Pérez-Medina; F R Pérez-Lopez Journal: Ultrasonics Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Meera Kotagal; Elina Quiroga; Benjamin J Ruffatto; Adeyinka A Adedipe; Brandon H Backlund; Robert Nathan; Anthony Roche; Dana Sajed; Sachita Shah Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 2.891