• Users Online: 438
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 
Table of Contents
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 110

Central venous line placement and ultrasound probe damage: A word of caution


Department of Medicine-DIMED, Section of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Date of Submission10-Aug-2018
Date of Acceptance29-Aug-2018
Date of Web Publication30-Oct-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Alessandro De Cassai
Department of Medicine.DIMED, Section of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Padova, Via V. Gallucci, 13, 35121, Padova
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JMU.JMU_76_18

Get Permissions


How to cite this article:
De Cassai A, Tonetti T. Central venous line placement and ultrasound probe damage: A word of caution. J Med Ultrasound 2019;27:110

How to cite this URL:
De Cassai A, Tonetti T. Central venous line placement and ultrasound probe damage: A word of caution. J Med Ultrasound [serial online] 2019 [cited 2021 Jan 24];27:110. Available from: http://www.jmuonline.org/text.asp?2019/27/2/110/244526

Dear Editor,

The use of ultrasound (US) during central venous catheter (CVC) placement is strongly recommended, primarily to reduce the number and extent of procedure-related complication.[1] Sterility is of paramount importance to avoid catheter-related bloodstream infections. Key points are: accurate hands washing, wearing of appropriate sterile equipment, proper skin disinfection, adequate sterile draping of site of puncture and adequate covering of US probe with a sterile plastic sheath. The technique can be executed with two different approaches (“in-plane” or “out-of-plane”), both allowing direct vision of the needle or at least of its tip.[2] The two approaches require coordination between eye, hand and US probe since it is impossible to look at the US screen and at the puncture site contemporarily.

The image [Figure 1] shows a linear US probe used for CVC placement in at least three-thousand procedures, mostly by resident anesthesiologists. The most damaged areas are located on the short side of the probe (arrows) and on the median point of the long sides (asterisks). The supposed mechanism of damage is the repetitive contact of the sharp needle tip with the softer probe material during “in-plane” approach (arrows) and “out-of-plane” approach (asterisks). We have to assume damage to the sterile plastic sheath casting doubts about sterility and asepsis of the procedure. Caution has to be made every time an US-guided approach is used, and needle contact with the skin has to happen under direct vision, to avoid such complications.
Figure 1: Ultrasound damaged probe

Click here to view


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Brass P, Hellmich M, Kolodziej L, Schick G, Smith AF. Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein catheterization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;1:CD006962.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Saugel B, Scheeren TWL, Teboul JL. Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: A structured review and recommendations for clinical practice. Crit Care 2017;21:225.  Back to cited text no. 2
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed831    
    Printed31    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded133    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal