4.5 Article

Point of Care Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Necrotizing Fasciitis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 51, 期 -, 页码 397-400

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.10.033

关键词

Necrotizing fasciitis; POCUS; Soft tissue infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the use of POCUS in identifying NF patients and found that it has high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing NF, which may help in fast and accurate diagnosis of NF.
Background: Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a severe, life-threatening soft tissue infection requiring prompt diagnosis and immediate surgical debridement. Imaging, including a computed tomography (CT) scan, can often aid in the diagnosis, though it can prolong time to treatment and diagnosis. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is often used in the ED to identify soft tissue infections. The objective of this study is to evaluate the use of POCUS to identify NF in patients presenting to the emergency department. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with suspected soft tissue infection who received a computed tomography and/or surgical consult. POCUS images of the suspected site of infection were obtained by the emergency medicine physician and interpreted based on sonographic findings of NF. These findings were compared with CT scan or surgical impression. Results: We enrolled 64 patients in this study. Eight were determined to be at high risk of having NF based on CT scan and/or surgical impression. All of these patients also had POCUS images interpreted as concerning for NF. Furthermore, 56 patients were classified as being low risk for having NF based on CT scan and/or surgical impression. All but one of these patients had POCUS images interpreted as not concerning for NF. Conclusions: Our data indicates that POCUS can be used to identify NF with a high sensitivity and specificity. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据