Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Therapy, Hospital Mutua de Accidentes de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain -
Minerva Anestesiol. 2019 Jan;85(1):53-59. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12900-2. Epub 2018 Sep 10.
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.
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).
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.
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.
本研究旨在评估和比较不同类型的针具在使用或不使用超声增强软件时的可视化效果，包括在生物组织和人工模型中的表现。
本研究为一项在新鲜猪组织和明胶模型上进行的观察性研究。研究了 6 种丛针。同一位麻醉医师在 2D 模式和基于软件的增强模式下，以 30°、40°和 50°的角度对每种针具进行平面穿刺，每种角度均进行 3 次，不改变位置，共生成 72 张图像。由 38 名具有至少两年超声经验的麻醉医师对图像进行盲法评估，并根据针具、模式、角度和实验模型对图像进行 0 至 10 分的评分。采用单变量和多变量分析来识别图像之间的差异。我们将结果描述为平均值（标准差）。
Echoplex 针（8.31±1.94）明显优于 Sonoplex 针（7.53±2.16），P=0.0003，且均明显优于其他针具（P<0.0001）。在明胶模型（7.26±2.48）和超声增强软件（8.59±1.55）中也发现了显著差异，P<0.0001。多变量分析也证实了这些差异。
尽管在超声可视化策略中使用的不同类型的针具之间存在差异，但超声增强软件无论选择哪种模型都能提供良好的可视化效果。
