Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Comparison of ultrasonographic renal excursion to fluoroscopic diaphragmatic excursion for the assessment of diaphragmatic function in patients with high cervical cord injury.

Authors: Liu-Ing, Bih; Yao-Ting, Wu; Su-Ju, Tsai; Fan-Fei, Tseng; Chun-Yi, Lin; Hwa, Ding;

Comparison of ultrasonographic renal excursion to fluoroscopic diaphragmatic excursion for the assessment of diaphragmatic function in patients with high cervical cord injury.

Abstract

To compare the renal excursion detected by ultrasonography with the diaphragmatic excursion recorded by fluoroscopy in estimating the diaphragmatic function in patients with high cervical cord injury.Prospective, blinded comparative study.A rehabilitation hospital affiliated with a medical university.Fifteen consecutively admitted patients with high cervical cord injury.Not applicable.Chest radiographs, fluoroscopy of diaphragmatic motion, and ultrasonography of renal motion.Of the 15 patients, 2 were diagnosed with hemidiaphragm paralysis using fluoroscopy and renal ultrasonography. The average diaphragmatic excursion was 59 mm (range, 30-83 mm) in 28 nonparalyzed hemidiaphragms. The average renal excursion was 49 mm (range, 28-61 mm). The correlation coefficient for fluoroscopic hemidiaphragm excursion and ultrasonographic renal excursion was .853.Ultrasonographic renal excursion and fluoroscopic diaphragmatic excursion correlated highly. With the fluoroscopy results as the criterion standard, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were both 100% for renal sonography. With the advantages of convenience of use, no radiation exposure, and high reproducibility, renal ultrasonography is recommended as a first-line screening and long-term follow-up tool for assessment of diaphragmatic function.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, Adolescent, Diaphragm, Middle Aged, Kidney, Fluoroscopy, Linear Models, Humans, Prospective Studies, Spinal Cord Injuries, Ultrasonography

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    16
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
16
Average
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!