Ross Prager1, Paul Pageau2, Timothy Hodges3, Christina Yan4, Michael Woo2, Marie-Joe Nemnom5, Scott Millington6, Matthew Holden7, Raphael St-Gelais3, Warren J Cheung2. 1. Department of Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada. 3. Faculty of Engineering University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada. 4. Faculty of Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada. 5. Clinical Epidemiology Program Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ottawa Ontario Canada. 6. Division of Critical Care University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada. 7. School of Computer Science Carleton University Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Abstract
Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an important diagnostic tool in acute care medicine; however, little is known about the biomechanical differences between novice and expert practitioners. Methods: A low-cost ($50 CAD) gyroscope and accelerometer integrated sensor was assembled and affixed to an ultrasound probe. Seventeen participants, nine novices and eight experts, were recruited to perform three abdominal and four cardiac scans on a standardized patient. Participant demographics, time per scan, average acceleration, average angular velocity, decay in acceleration and angular velocity over time, and frequency of probe movements were analyzed. Video capture with blinded video review was scored. Results: On video review, experts had higher image optimization and acquisition scores for both abdominal and cardiac scans. Experts had shorter scan times for abdominal (7 s vs. 26 s, p = 0.003) and cardiac (11 s vs. 26 s, p < 0.001) scans. There was no difference in average acceleration (g) between novices and experts performing abdominal (1.02 vs. 1.01, p = 0.50) and cardiac (1.01 vs. 1.01, p = 0.45) scans. Experts had lower angular velocity (°/s) for abdominal scans (10.00 vs. 18.73, p < 0.001) and cardiac scans (15.61 vs. 20.33, p = 0.02) There was a greater decay in acceleration over time for experts performing cardiac scans compared to novices (-0.194 vs. -0.050, p = 0.03) but not for abdominal scans or when measuring angular velocity. The frequency of movements (Hz) was higher for novices compared to experts for abdominal (16.68 vs. 13.79, p < 0.001) and cardiac (17.60 vs. 13.63, p = 0.002) scans. Discussion: This study supports the feasibility of a low-cost gyroscope and accelerometer integrated sensor to quantify the biomechanics of POCUS. It may also support the concept of "window shopping" as a method by which experts obtain abdominal and cardiac views, where sliding is used to find an acoustic window, then smaller rocking and tilting probe movements are used to refine the image.
Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an important diagnostic tool in acute care medicine; however, little is known about the biomechanical differences between novice and expert practitioners. Methods: A low-cost ($50 CAD) gyroscope and accelerometer integrated sensor was assembled and affixed to an ultrasound probe. Seventeen participants, nine novices and eight experts, were recruited to perform three abdominal and four cardiac scans on a standardized patient. Participant demographics, time per scan, average acceleration, average angular velocity, decay in acceleration and angular velocity over time, and frequency of probe movements were analyzed. Video capture with blinded video review was scored. Results: On video review, experts had higher image optimization and acquisition scores for both abdominal and cardiac scans. Experts had shorter scan times for abdominal (7 s vs. 26 s, p = 0.003) and cardiac (11 s vs. 26 s, p < 0.001) scans. There was no difference in average acceleration (g) between novices and experts performing abdominal (1.02 vs. 1.01, p = 0.50) and cardiac (1.01 vs. 1.01, p = 0.45) scans. Experts had lower angular velocity (°/s) for abdominal scans (10.00 vs. 18.73, p < 0.001) and cardiac scans (15.61 vs. 20.33, p = 0.02) There was a greater decay in acceleration over time for experts performing cardiac scans compared to novices (-0.194 vs. -0.050, p = 0.03) but not for abdominal scans or when measuring angular velocity. The frequency of movements (Hz) was higher for novices compared to experts for abdominal (16.68 vs. 13.79, p < 0.001) and cardiac (17.60 vs. 13.63, p = 0.002) scans. Discussion: This study supports the feasibility of a low-cost gyroscope and accelerometer integrated sensor to quantify the biomechanics of POCUS. It may also support the concept of "window shopping" as a method by which experts obtain abdominal and cardiac views, where sliding is used to find an acoustic window, then smaller rocking and tilting probe movements are used to refine the image.
Authors: David Clinkard; Matthew Holden; Tamas Ungi; David Messenger; Colleen Davison; Gabor Fichtinger; Robert McGraw Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Ross Prager; Luke Gagnon; Joshua Bowdridge; Rudy R Unni; Trevor A McGrath; Kelly Cobey; Patrick M Bossuyt; Matthew D F McInnes Journal: BMJ Evid Based Med Date: 2021-01-22
Authors: Scott J Millington; Michael Hewak; Robert T Arntfield; Yanick Beaulieu; Benjamin Hibbert; Seth Koenig; Pierre Kory; Paul Mayo; Jordan R Schoenherr Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Markus T Ziesmann; Jason Park; Bertram Unger; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Ashley Vergis; Chau Pham; David Kirschner; Sarvesh Logestty; Lawrence M Gillman Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Daniel J Kim; Mario Francispragasam; Gavin Docherty; Byron Silver; Ross Prager; Donna Lee; David Maberley Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Scott J Millington; Robert T Arntfield; Robert Jie Guo; Seth Koenig; Pierre Kory; Vicki Noble; Haney Mallemat; Jordan R Schoenherr Journal: Crit Ultrasound J Date: 2017-11-22
Authors: Ross Prager; Kay Wu; Roudi Bachar; Rudy R Unni; Joshua Bowdridge; Trevor A McGrath; Rajiv Thavanathan; Michael Y Woo; Matthew D F McInnes Journal: BMJ Evid Based Med Date: 2020-11-11