Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 January;85(1) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 January;85(1):53-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Freefree

Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 January;85(1):53-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12900-2

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Effect of ultrasound image enhancement software on the quality of vision of regional anesthesia needles

Alfredo ABAD-GURUMETA 1, Rubén CASANS-FRANCÉS 2 , Enrique ROCA-CASTILLO 3, Javier RIPOLLÉS-MELCHOR 1, José M. CALVO-VECINO 4

1 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; 2 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Therapy, Hospital Mutua de Accidentes de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain; 3 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hospital of Getafe, Getafe, Spain; 4 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Therapy, University Assistance Complex of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain



BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate and compare the visualization of different types of needles with or without ultrasound image enhancement software, both in biological tissues and artificial models.
METHODS: This is an observational study on fresh porcine tissue and gelatin models. Six types of plexus needles were studied. The same anesthesiologist performed in-plane punctures with each needle at 30°, 40° and 50° in both 2D mode and using software-based enhanced mode without changing position, generating 72 images. The images were evaluated blind by 38 anesthesiologists with at least two years of experience in ultrasound and rated from 0 to 10. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify differences between the images according to needle, mode, angle and experimental model. We described the results as mean (standard deviation).
RESULTS: The Echoplex needle, 8.31 (1.94), was significantly better than the Sonoplex needle, 7.53 (2.16), P=0.0003, and both were significantly better than the other needles (P<0.0001). Significant differences were also found in favor of the gelatin model, 7.26 (2.48) vs. 6.24 (3.67), P<0.0001, and with ultrasound image enhancement software, 8.59 (1.55) vs. 4.91 (3.31), P<0.0001. These differences were confirmed by multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there are differences between the different types of needles used with ultrasound visualization strategies, ultrasound image enhancement software provides good visualization, regardless of the model chosen.


KEY WORDS: Ultrasonography - Phantoms, imaging - Anesthesia

top of page