Suppr超能文献

超声与X线平片在长骨骨折检测中的比较

Comparison of Ultrasound and Plain Radiography for the Detection of Long-bone Fractures.

作者信息

Bahl Amit, Bagan Michael, Joseph Steven, Brackney Abigail

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MN, USA.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Emergency Physician Professional Association, Minnetonka, MN, USA.

出版信息

J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2018 Apr-Jun;11(2):115-118. doi: 10.4103/JETS.JETS_82_17.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare emergency medicine (EM) resident physicians' ability to identify long-bone fractures using ultrasound (US) versus plain radiography (X-ray).

METHODS

This was an IRB-approved, randomized prospective study. Study participants included 40 EM residents at a single site. Fractures were mechanically induced in five chicken legs, and five legs were left unfractured. Chicken legs were imaged by both modalities. Participants were given 2 min to view each of the images. Participants were randomized to either US or X-ray interpretation first and randomized to viewing order within each arm. Participants documented the presence or absence of fracture and location and type of fracture when pertinent. Mean proportions and standard deviations (SDs) were analyzed using paired -test and linear models.

RESULTS

Forty residents (15 postgraduate years (PGY)-1, 12 PGY-2, 13 PGY-3) participated in the study. Thirty-one participants were male, and 19 were randomized to US first. Residents completed a mean of 185 (SD 95.8) US scans before the study in a variety of applications. Accurate fracture identification had a higher mean proportion in the US arm than the X-ray arm, 0.89 (SD 0.11) versus 0.75 (SD 0.11), respectively ( < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in US arm and X-ray arm for endpoints of fracture location and type.

CONCLUSION

EM residents were better able to identify fractures using US compared to X-ray, especially as level of US and ED experience increased. These results encourage the use of US for the assessment of isolated extremity injury, particularly when the injury is diaphyseal.

摘要

目的

比较急诊医学(EM)住院医师使用超声(US)与普通X线摄影(X线)识别长骨骨折的能力。

方法

这是一项经机构审查委员会(IRB)批准的随机前瞻性研究。研究参与者包括来自单一地点的40名EM住院医师。在五只鸡腿上机械诱导骨折,另外五只鸡腿不造成骨折。两种方式都对鸡腿进行成像。参与者有2分钟时间查看每张图像。参与者被随机分为先进行超声或X线解读,并在每组内随机确定查看顺序。参与者记录骨折的有无以及相关时骨折的位置和类型。使用配对t检验和线性模型分析平均比例和标准差(SD)。

结果

40名住院医师(15名研究生一年级(PGY)-1、12名PGY-2、13名PGY-3)参与了研究。31名参与者为男性,19名被随机分配为先进行超声检查。在研究前,住院医师在各种应用中平均完成了185次(SD 95.8)超声扫描。超声组准确识别骨折的平均比例高于X线组,分别为0.89(SD 0.11)和0.75(SD 0.11)(P<0.001)。在骨折位置和类型的终点方面,超声组和X线组没有统计学上的显著差异。

结论

与X线相比,EM住院医师使用超声能更好地识别骨折,尤其是随着超声和急诊经验水平的提高。这些结果鼓励使用超声评估孤立的肢体损伤,特别是当损伤为骨干骨折时。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9954/5994859/86858072d5b4/JETS-11-115-g002.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验