Prone Chest Radiographs: Distinguishing Features and Identification of Support Devices.
AuthorLazarus, Matthew S
Villasana, Geraldine M
Herring, Allison A
Levsky, Jeffrey M
White, Charles S
Haramati, Linda B
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractPurpose: Prone position is known to improve acute lung injury, and chest radiographs are often necessary to monitor disease and confirm support device placement. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding radiographs obtained in this position. We evaluated prone radiographs for distinguishing features and ability to identify support devices. Methods: Pairs of prone and supine radiographs obtained during the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed retrospectively. IRB approval and waiver of informed consent were obtained. Radiographs were assessed for imaging adequacy, distinguishing features, and support device identification (endotracheal tube, enteric tube, or central line). Radiographs were reviewed by ≥ 2 cardiothoracic radiologists. Results: Radiographs from 81 patients (63yo ± 13, 30% women) were reviewed. Prone and supine radiographs were comparable for imaging the lung bases (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.35) and apices (93% vs. 94%, p = 1); prone radiographs more frequently had significant rotation (36% vs. 19%, p = 0.021). To identify prone technique, scapula tip located beyond the rib border was 89% sensitive (95%CI 80-95%) and 85% specific (76-92%), and a fundal stomach bubble was 44% sensitive (33-56%) and 90% specific (81-96%). For women, displaced breast shadow was 46% sensitive (26-67%) and 92% specific (73-99%). Prone and supine radiographs each identified > 99% of support devices. Prone exams trended toward increased rate of malpositioned device (12% vs. 6%, p = 0.07). Conclusion: Scapula position reliably distinguishes prone from supine position; fundal stomach bubble or displaced breast shadow is specific for prone position. Prone radiographs reliably identify line and tube position, which is particularly important as prone patients appear at increased risk for malpositioned devices.
Rights/Terms© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Identifier to cite or link to this itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/10713/19255
- Comparison of prone versus supine 18F-FDG-PET of locally advanced breast cancer: Phantom and preliminary clinical studies.
- Authors: Williams JM, Rani SD, Li X, Arlinghaus LR, Lee TC, MacDonald LR, Partridge SC, Kang H, Whisenant JG, Abramson RG, Linden HM, Kinahan PE, Yankeelov TE
- Issue date: 2015 Jul
- CT-guided Lung Biopsy: Effect of Biopsy-side Down Position on Pneumothorax and Chest Tube Placement.
- Authors: Drumm O, Joyce EA, de Blacam C, Gleeson T, Kavanagh J, McCarthy E, McDermott R, Beddy P
- Issue date: 2019 Jul
- Supine versus prone positioning for ultrasound evaluation of postnatal urinary tract dilation in children.
- Authors: Calle-Toro JS, Maya CL, Gorfu Y, Dunn E, Darge K, Back SJ
- Issue date: 2020 Mar
- The supine-to-prone position change induces modification of endotracheal tube cuff pressure accompanied by tube displacement.
- Authors: Minonishi T, Kinoshita H, Hirayama M, Kawahito S, Azma T, Hatakeyama N, Fujiwara Y
- Issue date: 2013 Feb
- Prone position for acute respiratory failure in adults.
- Authors: Bloomfield R, Noble DW, Sudlow A
- Issue date: 2015 Nov 13