• Der Anaesthesist · Apr 2012

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    [Comparison of ready-to-use devices for emergency cricothyrotomy : randomized and controlled feasibility study on a mannequin].

    • V Helmstaedter, W A Wetsch, B W Böttiger, and J Hinkelbein.
    • Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Köln (AÖR), Köln, Deutschland.
    • Anaesthesist. 2012 Apr 1;61(4):310-9.

    BackgroundAccording to various algorithms of airway management, emergency cricothyrotomy (coniotomy) represents the ultimate step for managing the difficult airway. As most physicians have limited experience with this technique several ready-to-use devices have emerged on the market with the aim of simplifying the procedure. However, they differ in details, such as configuration or the order of particular steps. Therefore, the intention of this randomized and controlled feasibility study was to test various sets and compare them to the classical surgical approach.MethodsAfter obtaining informed consent German anesthesiologists who were also board-certified emergency physicians were asked to perform the cricothyrotomy procedure in a cervical mannequin (Frova Crico-Trainer, VBM Medizintechnik) in a randomized order using a scalpel, peripheral intravenous cannula and the commercial devices TracheoQuick, Airfree, Portex-Crico-Kit, Quicktrach I and Quicktrach II. Handling and duration of the procedures were analyzed utilizing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A p-value  < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsA total of 20 anesthesiologists (11 residents and 9 specialists) with a mean age of 34 years were included in this study and all had the additional qualification of emergency physician, which enabled them to work in prehospital emergency medicine in Germany. Participants had been working in this field for an average of 29.9 months (range 6-84 months) performing a mean of 1.9 24 h shifts per month (range 1-6 shifts/month). Of the participants only 2 (10%) had performed a coniotomy in reality before. In this study surgical coniotomy required a median time of 35.4 s (range 30.0-61.8 s). No significant differences were seen when the cuffed devices Quicktrach II (median: 29.9 s, range 25.0-50.5 s) and Portex-Crico-Kit (median: 46.7 s, range 37.0-67.3 s) were used. A significantly faster airway was established using the non-cuffed devices TracheoQuick (median: 20.2 s, range 11.4-44.7 s), Airfree (median: 22.8 s, range 14.3-33.2 s), Quicktrach I (median: 21.1 s, range 14.5-32.4 s) and the peripheral intravenous cannula (median: 19.2 s, range 10.8-27.8 s). Incorrect tube placements were not observed.ConclusionThis study allowed the comparison of surgical coniotomy to several ready-to-use devices in a standardized setting utilizing a reusable plastic mannequin. The interpretation for real emergency conditions is limited as individual anatomy, traumatic alterations of the neck or complications, such as bleeding or damage of important structures were not part of the study objectives. However, all participating emergency physicians successfully used the coniotomy sets provided at the first attempt. No device required significantly more time than the surgical approach. The procedures using cuffed devices lasted longer in comparison to procedures using uncuffed ones; however, this difference would only play a minor role in reality as effective ventilation with minute volumes greater than 7 l/min will only be achieved by a cuffed cannula with a minimum internal diameter of 4 mm. Devices with no cuff or with tube diameters smaller than 4 mm will only allow oxygenation of the patient, which in turn requires an inspiratory oxygen concentration of 100% and a relatively high ventilation frequency.

      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.