544 - Comparison of Tegaderm vs No Tegaderm for Ocular Ultrasound
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
Location: Majestic Ballroom: Majestic
Background and Objectives: Eye complaints are a common chief complaint seen in the emergency department. Ocular ultrasound has been shown to be a reliable examination tool to accurately diagnose certain eye pathologies. However, the role of transparent medical dressings (Tegaderm) over a closed eyelid versus no cover remains controversial with varying recommendations for or against its use. This study will provide a better understanding of patient preference for use or no use of Tegaderm during ocular ultrasounds. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in discomfort during the exam between the Tegaderm and no Tegaderm groups. Secondary objectives included patient preference and image quality.
Methods: This was a randomized, crossover study. Emergency department patients without eye pain were randomly assigned to have Tegaderm cover either their right eye or left eye. Ocular ultrasound was performed on both eyes by an ultrasound fellowship-trained emergency physician. Patients were asked to rate their comfort level with each eye from 0-10 and state which eye (i.e., Tegaderm or no Tegaderm) they preferred. Ultrasound images were saved for each eye in both the sagittal and coronal planes and evaluated by a different blinded ultrasound fellowship-trained expert using a 1-5 rating scale. Data are presented as means with standard deviations (SD).
Results: 42 patients have currently been enrolled in the study. The mean discomfort score was 1.52/10 (SD: 1.88) for the Tegaderm group and 1.62/10 (SD: 2.25) for the no Tegaderm group. 20 (47.6%) patients preferred Tegaderm, 16 (38.1%) preferred no Tegaderm, and 6 (14.3%) had no preference. Image quality was 3.20/5 (SD: 0.93) for the Tegaderm group and 4.27/5 (SD:0.86) for the no Tegaderm group.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in patient discomfort with Tegaderm versus no Tegaderm though there was a slightly great patient preference for use of Tegaderm. However, image quality was significantly worse with Tegaderm than no Tegaderm.