TY - JOUR
T1 - Ultrasound machine comparison an evaluation of ergonomic design, data management, ease of use, and image quality
AU - Wynd, Kimberly P.
AU - Smith, Hugh M.
AU - Jacob, Adam K.
AU - Torsher, Laurence C.
AU - Kopp, Sandra L.
AU - Hebl, James R.
PY - 2009/7
Y1 - 2009/7
N2 - Background and Objectives: The use of ultrasound technology for vascular access and regional anesthesia is gaining widespread acceptance among anesthesia providers. As a result, many group practices and medical institutions are considering purchasing ultrasound equipment. Currently, comparative information regarding the ergonomic design, physical and adjustable features, data management, ease of use, cost, and image quality of various ultrasound machines is not available. The primary goal of this investigation was to develop an objective process of evaluating ultrasound equipment before purchase. The process of evaluation used in the current investigation may be used when comparing a variety of medical technologies. Methods: A randomized, side-by-side comparative evaluation of 7 different ultrasound machine models was performed. Sixteen resident physicians without prior ultrasound experience (inexperienced providers) completed a formal evaluation of each machine model after performing a standardized machine configuration and performance checklist. Inexperienced providers and 10 faculty members experienced in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia evaluated the image quality of 2 standardized images acquired from each machine model. Results: Overall, evaluators rated questions on the machine evaluation form as "very good" or "outstanding" 70% or more of the time for all machine models. The largest, most complex ultrasound machine was rated as having the best image quality by both inexperienced and experienced providers. Ultrasound machine models with the simplest ergonomic design and user interface were rated highest by inexperienced study participants.
AB - Background and Objectives: The use of ultrasound technology for vascular access and regional anesthesia is gaining widespread acceptance among anesthesia providers. As a result, many group practices and medical institutions are considering purchasing ultrasound equipment. Currently, comparative information regarding the ergonomic design, physical and adjustable features, data management, ease of use, cost, and image quality of various ultrasound machines is not available. The primary goal of this investigation was to develop an objective process of evaluating ultrasound equipment before purchase. The process of evaluation used in the current investigation may be used when comparing a variety of medical technologies. Methods: A randomized, side-by-side comparative evaluation of 7 different ultrasound machine models was performed. Sixteen resident physicians without prior ultrasound experience (inexperienced providers) completed a formal evaluation of each machine model after performing a standardized machine configuration and performance checklist. Inexperienced providers and 10 faculty members experienced in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia evaluated the image quality of 2 standardized images acquired from each machine model. Results: Overall, evaluators rated questions on the machine evaluation form as "very good" or "outstanding" 70% or more of the time for all machine models. The largest, most complex ultrasound machine was rated as having the best image quality by both inexperienced and experienced providers. Ultrasound machine models with the simplest ergonomic design and user interface were rated highest by inexperienced study participants.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350141059&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350141059&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181ac9e5b
DO - 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181ac9e5b
M3 - Article
C2 - 19574868
AN - SCOPUS:70350141059
SN - 1098-7339
VL - 34
SP - 349
EP - 356
JO - Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
JF - Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
IS - 4
ER -