Katharina Hollerieth1, Minh-Truc Vo-Cong2, Stephanie Preuss2, Stephan Kemmner2,3, Konrad Friedrich Stock2. 1. Department of Nephrology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. katharina.hollerieth@mri.tum.de. 2. Department of Nephrology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. Transplant Centre, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: "Point-of-Care Ultrasound" (POCUS) is now a familiar term. Although the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (ESFUMB) published a position paper about its usage (Nielsen et al. in Ultraschall Med 40(1):30-39. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0783-2303 , 2019), there has not been much scientific focus on its utility in uro-nephrological clinical practice thus far. The aim of this study was to evaluate the present usage of pocket ultrasound devices at the bedside. METHODS: 27 investigators (all medical doctors with at least 6 months of experience in sonography) performed 280 bedside examinations using a pocket ultrasound device for common clinical issues. RESULTS: The most frequent indications included evaluation of hydronephrosis (147), volume management including assessment of dimension of the vena cava inferior (IVC) (195), detection of pleural, pericardial and abdominal effusions (113) as well as residual urine (52). In 90%, specific clinical questions were effectively answered by the pocket ultrasound device alone. CONCLUSIONS: POCUS can be useful in the uro-nephrological field. In the hands of an experienced investigator, it saves time and, when it is realised that departmental ultrasound is not cheap, there is also an economic benefit with applicability within both inpatient and outpatient clinic settings. While acknowledging its technical limits, pocket ultrasound devices may nevertheless be helpful in targeted situations for triage or for bedside follow-up exams after earlier high-end ultrasound-based diagnosis.
PURPOSE: "Point-of-Care Ultrasound" (POCUS) is now a familiar term. Although the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (ESFUMB) published a position paper about its usage (Nielsen et al. in Ultraschall Med 40(1):30-39. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0783-2303 , 2019), there has not been much scientific focus on its utility in uro-nephrological clinical practice thus far. The aim of this study was to evaluate the present usage of pocket ultrasound devices at the bedside. METHODS: 27 investigators (all medical doctors with at least 6 months of experience in sonography) performed 280 bedside examinations using a pocket ultrasound device for common clinical issues. RESULTS: The most frequent indications included evaluation of hydronephrosis (147), volume management including assessment of dimension of the vena cava inferior (IVC) (195), detection of pleural, pericardial and abdominal effusions (113) as well as residual urine (52). In 90%, specific clinical questions were effectively answered by the pocket ultrasound device alone. CONCLUSIONS: POCUS can be useful in the uro-nephrological field. In the hands of an experienced investigator, it saves time and, when it is realised that departmental ultrasound is not cheap, there is also an economic benefit with applicability within both inpatient and outpatient clinic settings. While acknowledging its technical limits, pocket ultrasound devices may nevertheless be helpful in targeted situations for triage or for bedside follow-up exams after earlier high-end ultrasound-based diagnosis.
Authors: Michael Bachmann Nielsen; Vito Cantisani; Paul S Sidhu; Radu Badea; Tomasz Batko; Jonathan Carlsen; Michel Claudon; Caroline Ewertsen; Carmen Garre; Jordan Genov; Odd Helge Gilja; Roald Havre; Mateusz Kosiak; Wojciek Kosiak; James Pilcher; Helmut Prosch; Maija Radzina; Vasileios Rafailidis; Alexander Rykkje; Andreas Serra; Alexandros Sotiriadis; Mia Østergaard; Christoph F Dietrich Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Matthieu Biais; Cédric Carrié; François Delaunay; Nicolas Morel; Philippe Revel; Gérard Janvier Journal: Crit Care Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 9.097