Literature DB >> 9950380

Cricothyrotomy technique: standard versus the Rapid Four-Step Technique.

D P Davis1, K J Bramwell, G M Vilke, T Y Cardall, E Yoshida, P Rosen.   

Abstract

Standard cricothyrotomy technique uses a tracheal hook cephalad to the opening to stabilize the trachea during endotracheal (ET) tube passage. A newly described Rapid Four-Step Technique (RFST) uses the tracheal hook caudal to the opening to stabilize the trachea during ET tube passage. This experimental crossover trial compared standard cephalad tracheal hook traction to caudad traction as recommended by RFST in a cadaver model of cricothyrotomy. Outcome measures included the incidence of complications and the size of ET tube able to be passed with each technique. The anterior necks of 30 formalin-fixed cadavers were dissected to completely reveal the cricothyroid membranes and surrounding structures. Two emergency medicine residents performed all cricothyrotomies. Each cadaver was randomly assigned to undergo either standard open technique followed by RFST, or RFST followed by standard open technique. Standard open technique was performed using a #11 scalpel blade, a Trousseau dilator for widening the opening, and a tracheal hook held cephalad through the thyroid cartilage. RFST was performed using a #11 scalpel blade and a tracheal hook held caudad through the cricoid cartilage. Cuffed ET tubes without stylettes were passed in progressively larger sizes until significant resistance was met as determined independently by two physicians. The size of the largest ET tube passed for each technique was recorded. After each attempt the trachea was inspected for evidence of structural damage and the balloon cuff was checked to assess for cuff rupture. There were no complications with standard technique; five cadavers (16.7%) had complications with RFST including one (3.3 %) with balloon cuff rupture and four (13.3 %) with cricoid cartilage fractures. Tracheal damage prevented standard technique performance on three of the cadavers. There was no significant difference between maximal ET tube sizes for standard technique (median size 7.0, mean 6.95 mm internal diameter) versus RFST (median size 7.0, mean 6.82 mm internal diameter). We conclude that RFST may be associated with a higher incidence of complications than standard technique as demonstrated by our cadaver model of cricothyrotomy. We were unable to demonstrate a difference between the two techniques with regards to size of ET tube able to be passed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9950380     DOI: 10.1016/s0736-4679(98)00118-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0736-4679            Impact factor:   1.484


  4 in total

Review 1.  [Invasive techniques in emergency medicine. IV. Cricothyrotomy in emergency situations].

Authors:  T S Mutzbauer; W Keul; M Bernhard; A Völkl; A Gries
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  A hierarchical task analysis of cricothyroidotomy procedure for a virtual airway skills trainer simulator.

Authors:  Doga Demirel; Kathryn L Butler; Tansel Halic; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; David Spindler; Caroline Cao; Emil Petrusa; Marcos Molina; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De; Marc A deMoya
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Surgeons With Five or More Actual Cricothyrotomies Perform Significantly Better on a Virtual Reality Simulator.

Authors:  Di Qi; Emil Petrusa; Uwe Kruger; Nicholas Milef; Mohamad Rassoul Abu-Nuwar; Mohamad Haque; Robert Lim; Daniel B Jones; Melih Turkseven; Doga Demirel; Tansel Halic; Suvranu De; Noelle Saillant
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.192

4.  Comparison of a percutaneous device and the bougie-assisted surgical technique for emergency cricothyrotomy: an experimental study on a porcine model performed by air ambulance anaesthesiologists.

Authors:  Anders R Nakstad; Per P Bredmose; Mårten Sandberg
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 2.953

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.