• Acad Emerg Med · Aug 2011

    Assessing bladder volumes in young children prior to instrumentation: accuracy of an automated ultrasound device compared to real-time ultrasound.

    • Catherine Bevan, Davina Buntsma, Amanda Stock, Tania Griffiths, Susan Donath, and Franz E Babl.
    • Emergency Department, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. cath.bevan@rch.org.au
    • Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Aug 1;18(8):816-21.

    ObjectivesAutomated bladder ultrasound (ABUS) devices are portable and designed to provide automated measurement of bladder volume. They are simple and require minimal training compared to conventional real-time ultrasound (RTUS). Their most common application in the acute pediatric setting is to assess bladder volumes prior to performing invasive urine collection such as suprapubic aspiration (SPA) in children younger than 2 years of age. However, data on ABUS in young children are limited. The aim of this study was to assess the repeatability and accuracy of one type of ABUS, the BladderScan, in measuring of bladder volume in children aged 0 to 24 months when compared with RTUS.MethodsHealthy children aged 24 months and younger were scanned twice, 1 hour apart, using ABUS and RTUS. ABUS readings were performed by two senior pediatric emergency physicians who both completed three readings for each child. The measurements were repeated using a second ABUS machine in case of machine variability. RTUS measurements were performed by a pediatric sonographer who was blinded to the ABUS results. ABUS and RTUS measurements were compared by Bland-Altman analysis to determine the repeatability coefficient (repeatability) and the limits of clinical agreement (accuracy).ResultsBladder volume measurements were performed on 61 children aged 0 to 24 months (31 males; mean ± SD = age 11 ± 6.2 months; range = 0 to 24 months) using both the ABUS and the RTUS. There was wide variation between ABUS and RTUS measurements. The repeatability coefficient within ABUS readings was 20 mL. By Bland-Altman analysis, the 95% limits of agreement between ABUS and RTUS were -31 to +19 mL. ABUS also detected no values between 0 and 10 mL.ConclusionsThis study showed poor repeatability and accuracy in bladder volume measurements using BladderScan ABUS when compared to RTUS. The ABUS method does not appear to be a reliable method for assessing bladder volumes in children aged 0 to 24 months prior to bladder instrumentation.© 2011 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.