Echogenic technology can improve needle visibility during ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia

Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 185-189

  Hebard, Simon ^a   Hocking, Graham ^a,b  

^a SIR CHARLES GAIRDNER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANESTHESIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; ANESTHESIST; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FEMORAL NERVE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE; NERVE BLOCK; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARAMETER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGIONAL ANESTHESIA; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIATIC NERVE; TIME; ULTRASOUND GUIDED REGIONAL ANESTHESIA;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANESTHESIA, CONDUCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79952135499     PISSN: 10987339     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e31820d4349     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Chapman GA, Johnson D, Bodenham AR. Visualisation of needle position using ultrasonography. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:148-158. (Pubitemid 43337406)
2. Chin KJ, Perlas A, Chan VW, Brull R. Needle visualization in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia: Challenges and solutions. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008;33:532-544.
3. Culp WC, McCowan TC, Goertzen TC, et al. Relative ultrasonographic echogenicity of standard, dimpled, and polymeric-coated needles. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11:351-358. (Pubitemid 30161381)
4. Bradley MJ. An in-vitro study to understand successful free-hand ultrasound guided intervention. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:495-498.
5. Maecken T, Zenz M, Grau T. Ultrasound characteristics of needles for regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2007;32:440-447. (Pubitemid 47600026)
6. Edgcombe H, Hocking G. Sonographic identification of needle tip by specialists and novices: A blinded comparison of 5 regional block needles in fresh human cadavers. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35: 207-211.
7. Schafhalter-Zoppoth I, McCulloch CE, Gray AT. Ultrasound visibility of needles used for regional nerve block: An in vitro study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004;29:480-488. (Pubitemid 39221896)
8. Deam RK, Kluger R, Barrington MJ, McCutcheon CA. Investigation of a new echogenic needle for use with ultrasound peripheral nerve blocks. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35:582-586. (Pubitemid 47322325)
9. Bondestam S, Kreula J. Needle tip echogenicity. A study with real time ultrasound. Invest Radiol. 1989;24:555-560. (Pubitemid 19176526)
10. Nichols K, Wright LB, Spencer T, Culp WC. Changes in ultrasonographic echogenicity and visibility of needles with changes in angles of insonation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:1553-1557. (Pubitemid 37517632)
11. Hopkins RE, Bradley M. In-vitro visualization of biopsy needles with ultrasound: A comparative study of standard and echogenic needles using an ultrasound phantom. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:499-502.
12. Hebard S, Carey S, Hocking G. Comparison of echogenic and non-echogenic needles using two-dimensional assessment of tip error in human cadavers. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2010;38:1120.
13. Hocking G, Hebard S, Mitchell CH. A review of the benefits and pitfalls of phantoms in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011;36:162-170.
14. Neal JM, Brull R, Chan VW, et al. The ASRA evidence-based medicine assessment of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia and pain medicine: Executive summary. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35:S1YS9.
15. Sites BD, Neal JM, Chan V. Ultrasound in regional anesthesia: Where should the "focus" be set? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009;34:531-533.
16. Barrington MJ, Watts SA, Gledhill SR, et al. Preliminary results of the Australasian Regional Anaesthesia Collaboration: A prospective audit of more than 7000 peripheral nerve and plexus blocks for neurologic and other complications. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009;34:534-541.
17. Hopkins RE, Bradley M. In-vitro visualization of biopsy needles with ultrasound: A comparative study of standard and echogenic needles using an ultrasound phantom. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:499-502.
18. Jandzinski DI, Carson N, Davis D, et al. Treated needles: Do they facilitate sonographically guided biopsies? J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22:1233-1237.
19. Bergin D, Pappas JN, Hwang JJ, Sheafor DH, Paulson EK. Echogenic polymer coating: Does it improve needle visualization in sonographically guided biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1188-1190. (Pubitemid 34411418)
20. Gottlieb RH, Robinette WB, Rubens DJ, et al. Coating agent permits improved visualization of biopsy needles during sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:1301-1302. (Pubitemid 28489416)
21. Sites BD, Spence BC, Gallagher JD, et al. Characterizing novice behavior associated with learning ultrasound-guided peripheral regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2007;32:107-115. (Pubitemid 46366785)
22. Sites BD, Gallagher JD, Cravero J, Lundberg J, Blike G. The learning curve associated with a simulated ultrasound-guided interventional task by inexperienced anesthesia residents. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004;29:544-548. (Pubitemid 40039991)
23. Matalon TA, Silver B. US guidance of interventional procedures. Radiology. 1990;174:43-47. (Pubitemid 20017081)
24. Bloc S, Ecoffey C, Dhonneur G. Controlling needle tip progression during ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia using the hydrolocalization technique. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008;33:382-383.
25. Tsui BC, Finucane B. Practical recommendations for improving needle-tip visibility under ultrasound guidance? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2005;30:596-597.