AIM: To determine which modification to a vascular puncture needle results in increased visualization during ultrasound (US)-guided vascular puncture. METHODS: We evaluated US images of a phantom made of degassed gela...AIM: To determine which modification to a vascular puncture needle results in increased visualization during ultrasound (US)-guided vascular puncture. METHODS: We evaluated US images of a phantom made of degassed gelatin and each of the following four modified versions of a commercially available vascular puncture needle (18 G): re-cut needle, dimple needle, rough-surface needle (rough over the sections of needle located 3-6 mm from the tip), and a needle with four side holes (side holes covered by the sheath). An unmodified commercially available puncture needle was used as a control. Five interventional radiologists evaluated image quality according to the following classification grade:?I, invisible; II, poor; III, moderate; IV, good; V, excellent. RESULTS: The highest score for needle visualization was obtained for the needle with four side holes. The re-cut needle scored the same as the control. Multiple comparisons were conducted using overall evaluation scores among the commercially available needle, dimple needle, rough-surface needle (3-6 mm), and the needle with four side holes. A significantly higher score was obtained for the needle with four side holes (P < 0.05/6). CONCLUSION: The needle with four side holes was prominently visualized and gained a significantly higher score (compared with the other needles) in a phantom evaluation.展开更多
文摘AIM: To determine which modification to a vascular puncture needle results in increased visualization during ultrasound (US)-guided vascular puncture. METHODS: We evaluated US images of a phantom made of degassed gelatin and each of the following four modified versions of a commercially available vascular puncture needle (18 G): re-cut needle, dimple needle, rough-surface needle (rough over the sections of needle located 3-6 mm from the tip), and a needle with four side holes (side holes covered by the sheath). An unmodified commercially available puncture needle was used as a control. Five interventional radiologists evaluated image quality according to the following classification grade:?I, invisible; II, poor; III, moderate; IV, good; V, excellent. RESULTS: The highest score for needle visualization was obtained for the needle with four side holes. The re-cut needle scored the same as the control. Multiple comparisons were conducted using overall evaluation scores among the commercially available needle, dimple needle, rough-surface needle (3-6 mm), and the needle with four side holes. A significantly higher score was obtained for the needle with four side holes (P < 0.05/6). CONCLUSION: The needle with four side holes was prominently visualized and gained a significantly higher score (compared with the other needles) in a phantom evaluation.
