• Hamid Reza Javadzadeh, Amir Davoudi, Farnoush Davoudi, Mohammad Reza Ghane, Hojatolla Khajepoor, Hasan Goodarzi, Mehrdad Faraji, Sadrollah Mahmoudi, Somayeh Sadat Shariat, and Kazem Emami Meybodi.
• Trauma Research Center, Emergency Medicine Department, Baghiyatallah Hospital, Baghiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Mulla Sadra, Vanak, Tehran, Iran.
• Emerg Radiol. 2014 Feb 1;21(1):1-4.

AbstractBedside ultrasonography (BUS) has been widely used in many emergency evaluations, but the technique was not thoroughly evaluated for use in adult fractures. The water bath technique (WBT) is a modality which overcomes some important limitations of using BUS in extremity fractures. The study aims to evaluate and compare diagnostic values of BUS and WBT. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and accuracy of BUS and WBT were calculated and compared by the McNemar chi-square test. BUS had the highest sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and LR+ in the distal forearm. The highest NPV and LR- of BUS were seen in phalangeal and wrist injuries, respectively. The WBT examination had the highest sensitivity in phalangeal injuries and the highest specificity, PPV, and LR+ in the distal forearm. The highest NPV and LR- of the WBT examination were seen in phalangeal and wrist injuries, respectively. The McNemar χ (2) values for the comparison of BUS and WBT indicate that the two techniques provide statistically different results. The ultrasound revealed excellent diagnostic values which make it a favorable alternative in evaluating upper extremity fractures in adults. The WBT provides even better results.

20 keywords...

hide…