Angel F Mahan1, Matthew D McEvoy2, Nikolaus Gravenstein3. 1. Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Tennessee, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In modern practice, real-time ultrasound guidance is commonly employed for the placement of internal jugular vein catheters. With a new tool, such as ultrasound, comes the opportunity to refine and further optimize the ultrasound view during jugular vein catheterization. We describe jugular vein access techniques and use the long-axis view as an alternative to the commonly employed short-axis cross-section view for internal jugular vein access and cannulation. CONCLUSION: The long-axis ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein approach for internal jugular vein cannulation is a useful alternative technique that can provide better needle tip and guidewire visualization than the more traditional short-axis ultrasound view.
BACKGROUND: In modern practice, real-time ultrasound guidance is commonly employed for the placement of internal jugular vein catheters. With a new tool, such as ultrasound, comes the opportunity to refine and further optimize the ultrasound view during jugular vein catheterization. We describe jugular vein access techniques and use the long-axis view as an alternative to the commonly employed short-axis cross-section view for internal jugular vein access and cannulation. CONCLUSION: The long-axis ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein approach for internal jugular vein cannulation is a useful alternative technique that can provide better needle tip and guidewire visualization than the more traditional short-axis ultrasound view.
Keywords:
cannulation; internal jugular vein; long axis; short axis; ultrasound; venous catheterization
Authors: Leigh V Evans; Kelly L Dodge; Tanya D Shah; Lewis J Kaplan; Mark D Siegel; Christopher L Moore; Cara J Hamann; Zhenqiu Lin; Gail D'Onofrio Journal: Acad Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Catalin S Ezaru; Michael P Mangione; Todd M Oravitz; James W Ibinson; Richard J Bjerke Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2009-04-17 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: J Merrer; B De Jonghe; F Golliot; J Y Lefrant; B Raffy; E Barre; J P Rigaud; D Casciani; B Misset; C Bosquet; H Outin; C Brun-Buisson; G Nitenberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-08-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: U Mey; A Glasmacher; C Hahn; M Gorschlüter; C Ziske; M Mergelsberg; T Sauerbruch; I G H Schmidt-Wolf Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2002-10-23 Impact factor: 3.603