The utility of bedside ultrasound and patient perception in detecting soft tissue foreign bodies in children.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to determine if bedside ultrasound (US) and perception of wound foreign bodies (FBs) are useful screening tools for detecting wound FBs in children. METHODS: Prospective consecutive sample of children aged 18 years or younger presenting to a pediatric emergency department with wounds considered by the pediatric emergency department attending physician to be at risk for FBs was enrolled. Patients were asked if they had FB sensation in their wound(s). A bedside US of each wound was performed by the pediatric emergency department attending physician. A radiograph of each wound was obtained and interpreted by a radiologist blinded to US results and patient perception. Wound FBs were defined by the removal of a FB. The utilities of US and US with FB perception were compared with radiography for screening for wound FBs. Differences in performance characteristics among the 3 modalities were assessed using Fisher exact test. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one wounds were studied in 105 patients. FBs were identified in 12 wounds (9.2%). A subanalysis was performed on patients able to answer questions regarding their perception of wound FBs. There were no significant differences in the test performance characteristics of bedside US alone compared with radiography for detecting wound FBs. Except for specificity, there were no significant differences in the test performance characteristics of bedside US combined with perception compared with radiography for detecting wound FBs. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside US is comparable to the performance of radiography interpreted by an attending pediatric radiologist. Bedside US alone or combined with patient perception may be an adequate initial screening tool for detecting wound FBs.

Wound irrigation in children: saline solution or tap water?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Irrigation, a critical component of wound management, is commonly performed with sterile normal saline solution. The purpose of this study was to compare the infection rates of wounds irrigated with normal saline solution versus those of wounds irrigated with running tap water. METHODS: A prospective trial was conducted in an urban pediatric emergency department. Tap water pressure and flow rates were measured, and cultures were obtained before the study and at 5 months after study initiation. Patients 1 to 17 years of age presenting to the pediatric ED with a simple laceration were eligible. Exclusion criteria included immunocompromise, complicated lacerations, or current use of or need for antibiotics. Patients were allocated to the running tap water group or the standard normal saline solution irrigation group. Wounds were closed in standard fashion. Patients returned to the pediatric ED in 48 to 72 hours for evaluation. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-one patients were enrolled in the normal saline solution group and 259 in the tap water group. Tap water and normal saline solution pressures and flow rates differed. The groups did not differ in terms of patient demographic characteristics or wound characteristics. However, more wounds were located on the hand in the tap water group (21.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.3% to 27.1%) compared with those in the normal saline solution group (9.2%; 95% CI 5.9% to 13.4%). The wound infection rates were similar in the 2 groups (normal saline solution group: 2.8% [95% CI 1.1% to 5.7%] versus running tap water group: 2.9% [95% CI 1.2% to 5.9%]). CONCLUSION: There were no clinically important differences in infection rates between wounds irrigated with tap water or normal saline solution. Tap water might be an effective alternative to normal saline solution for wound irrigation in children.