Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T05:10:13.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Simulation Model for the Handheld Ultrasound Diagnosis of Pediatric Forearm Fractures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2023

Merve Eksioglu*
Affiliation:
University of Health Sciences, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Education and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine - Atasehir Istanbul, Turkey
Burcu Azapoglu Kaymak
Affiliation:
University of Health Sciences, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Education and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine - Atasehir Istanbul, Turkey
*
Correspondence: Merve Eksioglu, MD University of Health Sciences Fatih Sultan Mehmet Education and Research Hospital Department of Emergency Medicine Atasehir Istanbul, Turkey E-mail: mervekoyunoglu@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Handheld ultrasound (HHU) devices have gained prominence in emergency care settings and post-graduate training, but their application in the diagnosis of pediatric fractures remains under-explored. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of an HHU device for diagnosing pediatric forearm fractures using a simulation model.

Methods:

The materials for the basic pediatric fracture model include turkey bones soaked in white vinegar to make them pliable, food-grade gelatine, and plastic containers. Ultrasound analysis of the models was done with an HHU device, Sonosite İViz US (FUJIFILM Sonosite, Inc.; Bothell, Washington USA). Four different fracture patterns (transverse fracture, oblique fracture, greenstick fracture, and a torus fracture) and one model without fracture were used in this study. Twenty-six Emergency Medicine residents sonographically evaluated different bone models in order to define the presence and absence of fracture and the fracture subtype. The participants’ ability to obtain adequate images and the time taken to create and recognize the images were evaluated and recorded. After the sonographic examination, the residents were also asked for their opinion on the model as a teaching tool.

Results:

All participants (100%) recognized the normal bone model and the fracture, regardless of the fracture type. The consistency analysis between the practitioners indicated a substantial agreement (weighted kappa value of 0.707). The duration to identify the target pathology in fracture models was significantly longer for the greenstick fracture (78.57 [SD = 30.45] seconds) model compared to other models. The majority of participants (92.3%) agreed that the model used would be a useful teaching tool for learning ultrasound diagnosis of pediatric forearm fractures.

Conclusions:

All participants successfully identified both the normal bone model and the presence of fractures, irrespective of the fracture type. Significantly, the identification of the greenstick fracture took longer compared to other fracture types. Moreover, the majority of participants acknowledged the model’s utility as a teaching tool for learning ultrasound diagnosis of pediatric forearm fractures.

Information

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine
Figure 0

Figure 1. (A)(B)(C) Ultrasound Probe Positioned on Bone Models for Accurate Imaging. (D) Ultrasound Image Showing an Oblique Fracture.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Ultrasound Images of Bone Models Depicting Different Fracture Types.(A) Ultrasound Image Showing a Turkey Bone Greenstick Fracture, Presenting Irregularity in Bone Contour and Alignment. (B) Ultrasound Image Displaying an Oblique Fracture with a Diagonal Fracture Line Across the Bone. (C) Ultrasound Image Illustrating a Buckle Fracture with Outward Bulging Cortex, Presenting Cortical Bulging Indicating the Buckle Fracture. (D) Ultrasound Image Showcasing a Transverse Fracture with a Clear Disruption and Horizontal Fracture Line.

Figure 2

Table 1. Cohen’s Kappa for Interrater Reliability

Figure 3

Table 2. Comparison of Recognition Times in Resident Groups who have Identified Both Models Correctly