Viveta Lobo
Stanford University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Viveta Lobo.
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine | 2016
Alan Chiem; Zachary Soucy; Vi Am Dinh; Mikaela Chilstrom; Laleh Gharahbaghian; Virag Shah; Anthony J. Medak; Arun Nagdev; Timothy Jang; Elena Stark; Aliasgher Hussain; Viveta Lobo; Abraham Pera; J. Christian Fox
Since the first medical student ultrasound electives became available more than a decade ago, ultrasound in undergraduate medical education has gained increasing popularity. More than a dozen medical schools have fully integrated ultrasound education in their curricula, with several dozen more institutions planning to follow suit. Starting in June 2012, a working group of emergency ultrasound faculty at the California medical schools began to meet to discuss barriers as well as innovative approaches to implementing ultrasound education in undergraduate medical education. It became clear that an ongoing collaborative could be formed to discuss barriers, exchange ideas, and lend support for this initiative. The group, termed Ultrasound in Medical Education, California (UMeCali), was formed with 2 main goals: to exchange ideas and resources in facilitating ultrasound education and to develop a white paper to discuss our experiences. Five common themes integral to successful ultrasound education in undergraduate medical education are discussed in this article: (1) initiating an ultrasound education program; (2) the role of medical student involvement; (3) integration of ultrasound in the preclinical years; (4) developing longitudinal ultrasound education; and (5) addressing competency.
Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America | 2017
Laleh Gharahbaghian; Kenton L. Anderson; Viveta Lobo; Rwo-Wen Huang; Cori Poffenberger; Phi D. Nguyen
With the advent of portable ultrasound machines, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has proven to be adaptable to a myriad of environments, including remote and austere settings, where other imaging modalities cannot be carried. Austere environments continue to pose special challenges to ultrasound equipment, but advances in equipment design and environment-specific care allow for its successful use. This article describes the technique and illustrates pathology of common POCUS applications in austere environments. A brief description of common POCUS-guided procedures used in austere environments is also provided.
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine | 2017
Viveta Lobo; Michelle Hunter-Behrend; Erin Cullnan; Rebecca Higbee; Caleb Philips; Sarah R. Williams; Phillips Perera; Laleh Gharahbaghian
Introduction The focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam is a critical diagnostic test for intraperitoneal free fluid (FF). Current teaching is that fluid accumulates first in Morison’s pouch. The goal of this study was to evaluate the “sub-quadrants” of traditional FAST views to determine the most sensitive areas for FF accumulation. Methods We analyzed a retrospective cohort of all adult trauma patients who had a recorded FAST exam by emergency physicians at a Level I trauma center from January 2012 – June 2013. Ultrasound fellowship-trained faculty with three emergency medicine residents reviewed all FAST exams. We excluded studies if they were incomplete, of poor image quality, or with incorrect medical record information. Positive studies were assessed for FF localization, comparing the traditional abdominal views and on a sub-quadrant basis: right upper quadrant (RUQ)1 - hepato-diaphragmatic; RUQ2 - Morison’s pouch; RUQ3 - caudal liver edge and superior paracolic gutter; left upper quadrant (LUQ)1 - splenic-diaphragmatic; LUQ2 - spleno-renal; LUQ3 – around inferior pole of kidney; suprapubic area (SP)1 - bilateral to bladder; SP2 - posterior to bladder; SP3 – posterior to uterus (females). FAST results were confirmed by chart review of computed tomography results or operative findings. Results Of the included 1,008 scans, 48 (4.8%) were positive. The RUQ was the most positive view with 32/48 (66.7%) positive. In the RUQ sub-quadrant analysis, the most positive view was the RUQ3 with 30/32 (93.8%) positive. Conclusion The RUQ is most sensitive for FF assessment, with the superior paracolic gutter area around the caudal liver edge (RUQ3) being the most positive sub-quadrant within the RUQ.
Cureus | 2018
Madeline M Grade; Cori Poffenberger; Viveta Lobo
We report a renal laceration identified on a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) performed in the emergency department on a 58-year-old female presenting after blunt trauma. Emergency workup demonstrated a right flank abrasion with tenderness to palpation, hematuria, and decreasing hematocrit. A Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) exam, performed as part of the intake trauma protocol, identified positive intraperitoneal fluid in the right upper quadrant. A computed tomography (CT) scan established a diagnosis of isolated right renal hematoma arising from a Grade IV laceration, with no collecting duct involvement. This report reviews the sonographic distinction between a renal hematoma and a positive FAST exam, and emphasizes the vital role ultrasound plays in the evaluation of the trauma patient.
Cureus | 2018
Layton Lamsam; Laleh Gharahbaghian; Viveta Lobo
Introduction Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly used as a diagnostic tool in emergency departments. As the number and type of POCUS protocols expand, there is a need to validate their efficacy in comparison with current diagnostic standards. This study compares POCUS to chest radiography in patients with undifferentiated respiratory or chest complaints. Methods A prospective convenience sample of 59 adult patients were enrolled from those presenting with unexplained acute respiratory or chest complaints (and having orders for chest radiography) to a single emergency department in an academic tertiary-care hospital. After a brief educational session, a medical student, blinded to chest radiograph results, performed and interpreted images from the modified Rapid Assessment of Dyspnea in Ultrasound (RADiUS) protocol. The images were reviewed by a blinded ultrasound fellowship-trained emergency physician and compared to chest radiography upon chart review. The primary “gold standard” endpoint diagnosis was the diagnosis at discharge. A secondary analysis was performed using the chest computed tomography (CT) diagnosis as the endpoint diagnosis in the subset of patients with chest CTs. Results When using diagnosis at discharge as the endpoint diagnosis, the modified RADiUS protocol had a higher sensitivity (79% vs. 67%) and lower specificity (71% vs. 83%) than chest radiography. When using chest CT diagnosis as the endpoint diagnosis (in the subset of patients with chest CTs), the modified RADiUS protocol had a higher sensitivity (76% vs. 65%) and lower specificity (71% vs. 100%) than chest radiography. The medical student performed and interpreted the 59 POCUS scans with 92% accuracy. Conclusion The sensitivity and specificity of POCUS using the modified RADiUS protocol was not significantly different than chest radiography. In addition, a medical student was able to perform the protocol and interpret scans with a high level of accuracy. POCUS has potential value for diagnosing the etiology of undifferentiated acute respiratory and chest complaints in adult patients presenting to the emergency department, but larger clinical validation studies are required.
Emergency Medicine - Open Journal | 2016
Benjamin Lindquist; Philips Perera; Alice Chao; Viveta Lobo; Laleh Gharahbaghian
5Director of the Ultrasound Program and Assistant Medical Director, Adult Emergency Medicine and Imaging, Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA *Corresponding author Laleh Gharahbaghian, MD, FACEP, FAAEM Clinical Associate Professor Director of the Ultrasound Program and Assistant Medical Director Emergency Imaging Department of Emergency Medicine Stanford University 300 Pasteur Dr, Alway M121 Stanford CA 94305, USA Tel. 650-725-5065 E-mail: [email protected]
Visual Journal of Emergency Medicine | 2018
Daniel T. Rogan; Viveta Lobo
Visual Journal of Emergency Medicine | 2017
Andrew Stromberg; Viveta Lobo
Visual Journal of Emergency Medicine | 2017
Leonardo Henrique Cunha Ferraro; Viveta Lobo
Visual Journal of Emergency Medicine | 2017
Gregory Wallingford; Viveta Lobo