Search

Introduction: Cephalohematomas generally do not pose a significant risk to the patient and resolve spontaneously. Conversely, a subgaleal hematoma is a rare but more serious condition. While it may be challenging to make this diagnostic distinction based on a physical examination alone, the findings that differentiate these two conditions can be appreciated on point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). We describe two pediatric patient cases where POCUS was used to distinguish between a subgaleal hematoma and a cephalohematoma.Case Reports: We describe one case of a 14-month-old male brought to the pediatric emergency department (PED) with concern for head injury. A POCUS examination revealed a large fluid collection that did not cross the sagittal suture. Thus, the hematoma was more consistent with a cephalohematoma and less compatible with a subgaleal hematoma. Given these findings, further emergent imaging was deferred in the PED and the patient was kept for observation. In the second case an 8-week-old male presented with suspected swelling over the right parietal region. A POCUS examination was performed, which demonstrated an extensive, simple fluid collection that extended across the suture line, making it more concerning for a subgaleal hematoma. Given the heightened suspicion for a subgaleal hematoma, the patient was admitted for further imaging and evaluation.Conclusion: Point-of-care ultrasound can be used to help differentiate between a subgaleal hematoma and a cephalohematoma to risk-stratify patients and determine the need for further imaging.

Introduction: Pott’s puffy tumor (PPT) is a rare clinical disease characterized by forehead swelling from a subperiosteal abscess coupled with frontal bone osteomyelitis. It is often associated with severe complications and poor outcomes if left undiagnosed; thus, rapid recognition is crucial. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) may provide an alternative pathway to diagnosis. It can be performed rapidly at the bedside and assist in early screening of patients, identifying those with high suspicion for PPT and prioritizing imaging and consultation.Case Report: A 59-yghb ar-old-male presented to the emergency department for evaluation of a “lump” on his forehead. He recently had a bifrontal craniotomy to de-bulk a polyp burden in an effort to manage his recurrent sinusitis. To further characterize the mass, a POCUS examination was performed by the treating emergency physician. The examination found a subcutaneous, hypoechoic fluid collection extending superficially along the frontal bone. A discontinuity in the surface of the frontal bone was visualized through which the collection appeared to extend. Given the heightened concern for PPT based on the POCUS examination findings, otolaryngology service was consulted and the patient was admitted for further imaging and treatment.Conclusion: Pott’s puffy tumor is a rare diagnosis that has the potential for life-threatening complications. Timely diagnosis is imperative. Point-of-care ultrasound can easily be used to help identify patients with suspicion for PPT in the acute care setting and influence patient management with regard to obtaining further imaging and plans for early consultation.

As emergency physicians are looking at handheld devices as alternatives to the traditional, cart-based systems, concerns center around whether they are forsaking image quality for a lower price point and whether the handheld can be trusted for medical decision making. We aimed to determine the feasibility of using a handheld ultrasound device in place of a cart-based system during the evaluation of trauma patients using the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examination. This was a prospective study of adult trauma patients who received a FAST examination as part of their evaluation. A FAST examination was performed using a cart-based machine and a handheld device. The results of the examinations were compared with computed tomography imaging. Images obtained from both ultrasound devices were reviewed by an expert for image quality. A total of 62 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean (SD) time to perform a FAST examination using the handheld device was 307.3 (65.3) s, which was significantly less (p = 0.002) than the 336.1 (86.8) s with the cart-based machine. There was strong agreement between the examination results of the handheld and cart-based devices and between the handheld and computed tomography. Image quality scores obtained with the handheld device were lower than those from the cart-based system. Most operators and reviewers agreed that the images obtained from the handheld were adequate for medical decision making. Data support that it is feasible to use the handheld ultrasound device for evaluation of the trauma patient in place of the cart-based system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: There is significant overlap between the symptoms of patients presenting with retinal detachment (RD) and posterior vitreous detachment (PVD). Urgency to obtain consultation and treatment are dependent on the ability to accurately distinguish these two conditions. The objective of this study was to determine the ability of emergency physicians to differentiate RDs from PVDs using point-of-care (POC) ocular ultrasound.Methods: Single blinded cross-sectional study at an academic medical center. Emergency physicians with varying ultrasound experience completed a brief tutorial on the sonographic findings of RD and PVD. Thirty POC ocular ultrasound clips obtained from ED patients with ocular symptoms were presented to emergency physicians. The sonographic findings in these clips were in agreement with the final diagnosis made by consultant ophthalmologists. There were 14 ultrasound videos showing PVD, 13 videos showing RD, and 3 normal ocular ultrasound videos. The subjects independently reviewed POC ocular ultrasound video clips and submitted their final interpretations.Results: A total of 390 ocular video clips were reviewed by 13 emergency physicians. Overall, physicians were able to accurately diagnose the presence of a RD 74.6% (95%CI, 69.8-79.4) of the time, PVD 85.7% (95%CI, 77.6-93.8) of the time, and normal ultrasounds 94.9% (95%CI 87.3-100.0) of the time. There was no statistically significant relationship between correct diagnoses for ocular abnormalities or normal ultrasound images and number of previous ocular ultrasounds performed by emergency physicians.Conclusion: Emergency physicians were modestly accurate in distinguishing RD from PVD on POC ultrasound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]