4.5 Article

PERFORMANCE OF LUNG ULTRASOUND IN DETECTING PERI-OPERATIVE ATELECTASIS AFTER GENERAL ANESTHESIA

Journal

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 12, Pages 2775-2784

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.06.010

Keywords

Lung ultrasound; Thoracic computed tomography; Atelectasis; General anesthesia

Funding

  1. Third Hospital of Central South University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the performance of lung ultrasound (LUS) in detecting post-operative atelectasis in adult patients under general anesthesia. Forty-six patients without pulmonary comorbidities who were scheduled for elective neurosurgery were enrolled in the study. A total of 552 pairs of LUS clips and thoracic computed tomography (CT) images were ultimately analyzed to determine the presence of atelectasis in 12 prescribed lung regions. The accuracy of LUS in detecting peri-operative atelectasis was evaluated with thoracic CT as gold standard. Levels of agreement between the two observers for LUS and the two observers for thoracic CT were analyzed using the kappa reliability test. The quantitative correlation between LUS scores of aeration and the volumetric data of atelectasis in thoracic CT were further evaluated. LUS had reliable performance in post-operative atelectasis, with a sensitivity of 87.7%, specificity of 92.1% and diagnostic accuracy of 90.8%. The levels of agreement between the two observers for LUS and for thoracic CT were both satisfactory, with k coefficients of 0.87 (p < 0.0001) and 0.93 (p < 0.0001), respectively. In patients in the supine position, LUS scores were highly correlated with the atelectasis volume of CT (r = 0.58, p < 0.0001). Thus, LUS provides a fast, reliable and radiation-free method to identify peri-operative atelectasis in adults. (E-mail: ouyangwen133@vip.sina.com) (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available