OBJECTIVE: To compare the placement feasibility and amount of bone trauma induced by 3 intraosseous (IO) access techniques in cats: an automatic impact penetration device (A), an automatic rotary insertion device (B), and a manual IO needle (C). DESIGN: Prospective ex vivo study. SETTING: University. ANIMALS: Eighteen adult mixed breed feline cadavers. INTERVENTIONS: Cadavers provided 72 total IO insertion locations divided equally between the right and left humerus and tibia. The 3 IO techniques were randomly allocated to these locations. Time to successful insertion, ease of insertion, and success rate were recorded. Each insertion site was analyzed for the number of bone fragments and defect diameter by computed tomography. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Device B had lower time of insertion (P=0.01) compared with devices A and C. Device B had better ease of insertion scores (P<0.01) compared with devices A and C. No differences were detected between insertion sites (tibia versus humerus). No differences in the number of bone fragments, defect diameter, or success rate were detected among devices (P=0.06, 0.31, and 0.14, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: All 3 IO access methods evaluated yield acceptable results. Device B is significantly faster and easier to place in cat cadavers when compared with other methods.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the placement feasibility and amount of bone trauma induced by 3 intraosseous (IO) access techniques in cats: an automatic impact penetration device (A), an automatic rotary insertion device (B), and a manual IO needle (C). DESIGN: Prospective ex vivo study. SETTING: University. ANIMALS: Eighteen adult mixed breed feline cadavers. INTERVENTIONS: Cadavers provided 72 total IO insertion locations divided equally between the right and left humerus and tibia. The 3 IO techniques were randomly allocated to these locations. Time to successful insertion, ease of insertion, and success rate were recorded. Each insertion site was analyzed for the number of bone fragments and defect diameter by computed tomography. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Device B had lower time of insertion (P=0.01) compared with devices A and C. Device B had better ease of insertion scores (P<0.01) compared with devices A and C. No differences were detected between insertion sites (tibia versus humerus). No differences in the number of bone fragments, defect diameter, or success rate were detected among devices (P=0.06, 0.31, and 0.14, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: All 3 IO access methods evaluated yield acceptable results. Device B is significantly faster and easier to place in cat cadavers when compared with other methods.