<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>15(6)</volume><submitter>Watanabe K</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Needle guides for ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous catheterization facilitate successful cannulation. The ability of a needle guide to prevent a posterior vein wall injury which may secondarily induce lethal complications, is unknown. Previous studies showed that a shallow angle of approach may reduce the incidence of posterior wall injuries. We developed a novel needle guide with a shallow angle of approach for ultrasound-guided venous catheterization and examined whether this needle guide reduces the incidence of posterior wall injuries compared to a conventional needle guide and free-hand placement in a simulated vein.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>This study was a randomized crossover-controlled trial. The primary outcome was the rate of posterior vein wall injuries. Participants had a didactic lecture about three ultrasound-guided techniques using the short-axis out-of-plane approach, including free-hand (P-free), a commercial needle guide (P-com), and a novel needle guide (P-sha). The view inside a simulated vein was recorded during venipuncture.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Thirty-five residents participated in this study. Posterior vein wall injuries occurred in 66% using P-free, 60% using P-com, and 0% using P-sha (p&lt; 0.01). There was no significant difference in the incidence of posterior vein wall injuries between P-free and P-com.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Use of a shallow angle of approach needle guide resulted in a lower rate of posterior vein injuries during venipuncture of a simulated vein compared with other techniques using a steeper angle techniques.</pubmed_abstract><journal>PloS one</journal><pagination>e0235519</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7326219</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Shallow-angle needle guide for ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous catheterization: A randomized controlled crossover simulation study (CONSORT).</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC7326219</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Tokumine J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lefor AK</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yorozu T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Watanabe K</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Shallow-angle needle guide for ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous catheterization: A randomized controlled crossover simulation study (CONSORT).</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Needle guides for ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous catheterization facilitate successful cannulation. The ability of a needle guide to prevent a posterior vein wall injury which may secondarily induce lethal complications, is unknown. Previous studies showed that a shallow angle of approach may reduce the incidence of posterior wall injuries. We developed a novel needle guide with a shallow angle of approach for ultrasound-guided venous catheterization and examined whether this needle guide reduces the incidence of posterior wall injuries compared to a conventional needle guide and free-hand placement in a simulated vein.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>This study was a randomized crossover-controlled trial. The primary outcome was the rate of posterior vein wall injuries. Participants had a didactic lecture about three ultrasound-guided techniques using the short-axis out-of-plane approach, including free-hand (P-free), a commercial needle guide (P-com), and a novel needle guide (P-sha). The view inside a simulated vein was recorded during venipuncture.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Thirty-five residents participated in this study. Posterior vein wall injuries occurred in 66% using P-free, 60% using P-com, and 0% using P-sha (p&lt; 0.01). There was no significant difference in the incidence of posterior vein wall injuries between P-free and P-com.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Use of a shallow angle of approach needle guide resulted in a lower rate of posterior vein injuries during venipuncture of a simulated vein compared with other techniques using a steeper angle techniques.</description><dates><release>2020-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2020</publication><modification>2025-04-04T13:37:44.527Z</modification><creation>2025-04-04T13:37:44.527Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC7326219</accession><cross_references><pubmed>32603357</pubmed><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0235519</doi></cross_references></HashMap>