• Bradley W Emmerich, Julie A W Stilley, Christopher S Sampson, Bobby G Horn, Kelly E Pollock, and Joshua D Stilley.
• School of Medicine, University of Missouri School of Medicine, 1 Hospital Dr, Columbia, MO, USA.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Jul 1; 38 (7): 130513091305-1309.

ObjectivePrehospital limb amputation is a rare but potentially life-saving intervention. When patients cannot be extricated due to limb entrapment or have hemodynamic compromise that precludes a prolonged extrication, they may benefit from an emergent prehospital amputation. The objective was to experimentally compare three prehospital amputation techniques on porcine legs.MethodsThe three techniques studied were a scalpel with a Gigli saw, a hacksaw, and a reciprocating saw. For the first technique, a scalpel was used to make a circumferential incision in the soft tissue and a Gigli wire saw to cut through the bone. The second and third techniques only used a saw and did not require soft tissue incision with a scalpel. Three providers including an emergency medicine physician, a paramedic, and a medical student performed three amputations of each technique, resulting in twenty-seven total amputations. The primary outcome was amputation time. Secondary outcomes were rate of instrument malfunction and cleanliness of cut.ResultsThe primary outcome of amputation time was different between techniques. The Gigli saw technique took 32.86 ± 16.53 s (mean ± SD), hacksaw technique 6.28 ± 0.76 s, and reciprocating saw technique 2.84 ± 0.40 s. There were no differences in amputation time between participants for a given amputation technique. The Gigli saw technique had an instrument malfunction on 3/9 trials which was distinct from the other techniques. Differences in cleanliness of cut were nonsignificant.ConclusionsPrehospital limb amputation with a hacksaw or reciprocating saw may result in faster completion of the time-sensitive procedure with fewer instrument malfunctions.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

22 keywords...

hide…