Needle tip tracking for ultrasound‐guided peripheral nerve block procedures—An observer blinded, randomised, controlled, crossover study on a phantom model. Issue 8 (30th April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kåsine, Trine; Romundstad, Luis; Rosseland, Leiv Arne; Ullensvang, Kyrre; Fagerland, Morten Wang; Hol, Per Kristian; Kessler, Paul; Sauter, Axel Rudolf
• Is Part Of: Acta anaesthesiologica scandinavica. Volume 63:Issue 8(2019:Sep.)
• Page Start: 1055
• Page End: 1062
• Publication Date: 2019-04-30
• Subjects: Anesthesiology -- Periodicals; Critical care medicine -- Periodicals; 617.9605
• DOI: 10.1111/aas.13379
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-5172

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The Onvision needle tip tracking (NTT) is a new technology consisting of a needle with an ultrasound sensor close to the needle tip and a console for computerised signal processing. The aim of the study was to evaluate NTT technology during ultrasound‐guided simulated peripheral nerve block procedures in a porcine phantom model. Methods: Forty anaesthesiologists performed in‐plane and out‐of‐plane simulated nerve blocks with and without NTT guidance. The primary outcome measure was procedure time. Secondary outcomes were hand movements and the path length travelled by the hands measured by motion analysis, precision of the needle tip related to the target structure, success rates and violations of the target structure, and the participants confidence whether their procedure would be successful or not. Results: Procedure time was reduced from 66.7 (SD = 47.5) seconds to 43.8 (SD = 29.2) seconds when NTT was used for out‐of‐plane procedures ( P = 0.002). The number of movements of the needle hand was 13.9 (SD = 30.2) with NTT and 24.8 (SD = 30.0) without NTT ( P = 0.019). No significant differences were registered during the performance of in‐plane procedures. The participants confidence in a presumed block success was increased with both in‐plane procedures (8.50 (SD = 1.18) with NTT vs 7.65 (SD = 1.96), P = 0.004) and out‐of‐plane procedures (8.50 (SD = 1.09) vs 7.10 (SD = 1.89), P = 0.0001). Conclusions: The new NTT technology significantly reduced the procedure time and the number of hand movements for ultrasound‐guided out‐of‐plane PNB procedures. No significant differences were found for the in‐plane procedures.