Page 75 - JSOM Fall 2020
P. 75

Texas Willed Body Program and the III Corps Surgeon Cell.   for a total of 240 scans were required to achieve an effect size
              Cadavers 1 and 2 were intubated with the endotracheal tube   of 10%, with an α < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval.
              placed in the right mainstem. A posterior thoracotomy inci-
              sion was done on cadaver 3 and the right main stem bronchus   Results
              was clamped with a curved hemostat, eliminating lung-sliding,
              thereby creating sonographic findings of PTX. Cadavers were   A total of 47 US Army combat medics met screening crite-
              then ventilated manually with a bag-valve mask. U/S images of   ria. Following randomization, four participants randomized
              all hemithoraces were validated by an U/S fellowship-trained   to the blended cohort were lost to competing duty require-
              emergency medicine physician prior to data collection. Both   ments prior to testing, leaving 24 in the didactic-only cohort
              sliding lung sign and seashore sign were verified in the three   and 19 in the blended cohort. They examined a total of 258
              normal lungs and absence of those signs were verified in the   hemithoraces. Overall sensitivity and specificity for detection
              three lungs with simulated pneumothoraces. Figures 3 and 4   of sonographic findings of PTX were 91% (95% confidence
              demonstrate medics interrogating anterior chest using B mode   interval [CI], 85–94%) and 80% (95% CI, 69–88%) respec-
              and M mode, respectively.                          tively, in the blended cohort vs 68% (95% CI, 60–74%) and
                                                                 57% (95% CI, 50–66%) in the didactic-only cohort, a sta-
                                                                 tistically significant difference in favor of the blended cohort
                                                                 (Table 1). There was no statistically significant difference in
                                                                 sensitivity or specificity between use of B or M modes among
                                                                 all study participants (Table 2). Tables 3 and 4 compare B- vs
                                                                 M-mode performance in didactic-only and blended cohorts,
                                                                 respectively.
                                               FIGURE 3
                                               Participant      TABLE 1  Overall Performance: Didactic-Only vs Blended Cohorts
                                               interrogating
                                               anterior chest using       Didactic-Only Cohort   Blended Cohort
                                               B mode.                         (n = 24)        (n = 19)   P Value
                                                                                68%             91%
                                                                 Sensitivity  (95% CI, 60–74%)  (95% CI, 85–94%)  <.001
                                                                                57%             80%
                                                                 Specificity                                .003
                                                                           (95% CI, 50–66%)  (95% CI, 69–88%)
                                                                 TABLE 2  B Mode vs M Mode: Didactic-Only Cohort
                                                                              B Mode          M Mode      P Value
                                                                               65%             70%
                                                                 Sensitivity                                .519
                                                                          (95% CI, 54–74%)  (95% CI, 60–79%)
                                                                               57%             57%
                                                                 Specificity                               1.000
                                                                          (95% CI, 44–69%)  (95% CI, 44–69%)
                                                                 TABLE 3  B Mode vs M Mode: Blended Cohort
                                                                              B Mode          M Mode      P Value
              FIGURE 4 Participant                               Sensitivity  92% (95% CI,   89% (95% CI,   .587
              interrogating left anterior chest in                            84–97%)         80–94%)
              M-mode, demonstrating seashore                                86% (95% CI,    74% (95% CI,
              sign found in a normal lung.                       Specificity  71–94%)         58–86%)      .370

                                                                 TABLE 4  B Mode vs M Mode: Overall
                                                                              B Mode          M Mode      P Value
                                                                               78%             79%
                                                                 Sensitivity                               .894
                                                                          (95% CI, 71–84%)  (95% CI, 72–85%)
                                                                               68%             64%
                                                                 Specificity                               .639
                                                                          (95% CI, 58–77%)  (95% CI, 54–73%)
              Each participant individually evaluated six hemothoraces
              with thoracic U/S while cadavers were ventilated via bag-
              valve mask. Following image acquisition and interpretation   Discussion
              in  B  mode,  participants  responded  with  “pneumo”  or  “no   U/S-naive US Army combat medics used portable U/S to de-
              pneumo” based on presence/absence of sliding lung sign, fol-  tected sonographic findings of PTX with high sensitivity fol-
              lowed by the same procedure in M mode based on presence/  lowing a 2-hour blended training intervention. Sensitivity was
              absence of seashore sign. Primary outcome measured was ab-  significantly inferior in the didactic-only cohort (1 hour), high-
              sence or presence of sonographic findings of PTX as verbally   lighting the importance of hands-on training in POCUS skill
              confirmed by the participant. Sensitivities and specificities   instruction. The use of M mode did not appear to enhance
              were calculated with 95% confidence χ  test. Statistical sig-  detection of PTX sonographic findings.
                                             2
              nificance was defined as P ≤ .05. A prestudy power analysis,
              using estimated sensitivity and specificity of equal to or greater   To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess military
              than 90%, was conducted using SPSS Sample Power 3.0  and   medic performance performing thoracic U/S on a human ca-
                                                         ®
              determined that a minimum of 40 medics scanning 3 cadavers   daver model. US Army combat medics in our study detected
                                                             Portable Ultrasound to Detect Pneumothorax in a Cadaveric Model  |  73
   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80