• Am J Emerg Med · Aug 2021

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    Quick cuts: A comparative study of two tools for ring tourniquet removal.

    • Joseph Walter, Michael DeBoer, Jenny Koops, Lydia L Hamel, Paula E Rupp, and Bjorn C Westgard.
    • Regions Hospital and HealthPartners, St. Paul, MN, United States of America; Critical Care Research Center, St. Paul, MN, United States of America. Electronic address: joseph.w.walter@healthpartners.com.
    • Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Aug 1; 46: 238-240.

    BackgroundRing tourniquet occurs when a ring becomes entrapped due to swelling or trauma. As the finger expands the blood flow restriction causes additional swelling, which can lead to nerve damage and other complications. Ring tourniquet can be an emergency that requires rapid ring removal. Standard devices for ring removal have been described but rarely tested. We conducted a randomized study to compare removal time, user and participant satisfaction and complications between a motorized diamond disc ring cutter (MDDRC) and a ring cutter attached to trauma shears (TS).MethodsIn pairs, emergency medicine providers removed rings using both devices and wore randomized rings to be removed (silver or steel). Each effort was timed from initiation to removal. After each effort both user and subject rated their satisfaction with the device, using a visual analog scale and reported any complications. Median and interquartile ranges were generated for the primary and secondary outcomes with 95% confidence intervals where applicable. Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were calculated with a = 0.05 to compare removal time and secondary outcomes between the two tools.ResultsThirty subjects completed the study. Median time to ring removal was significantly lower with the TS compared to the MDDRC (7.7 vs 67.0 s, p < .0001). Device user satisfaction (9.7/10 vs 3.8/10, p < .0001) and participant satisfaction (9.7/10 vs 6.8/10, p < .0001) were significantly higher with the TS, while participant discomfort was significantly lower with the TS (0.0/10 vs 2.2/10, p < .0001).ConclusionThis study is the first to compare efficacy, satisfaction and complications of two standard tools for removal of ring tourniquets. The TS took significantly less time than the GEM MDDRC and demonstrated significantly better satisfaction for both the ring wearer and ring remover.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.