JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Assmann, N. M.
Right arrow Articles by Morales, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Assmann, N. M.
Right arrow Articles by Morales, E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Resuscitation
Right arrow Equipment
Right arrow Critical Care

Anesth Analg 2007;105:148-154
© 2007 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000266439.43797.9e

CRITICAL CARE AND TRAUMA

A Comparison of a New Indicator-Guided with a Conventional Wire-Guided Percutaneous Cricothyroidotomy Device in Mannequins

Nicole M. Assmann, MD, FRCA, David T. Wong, MD, and Eduardo Morales, MD

From the Department of Anesthesiology, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Address correspondence to David T. Wong, MD, Department of Anesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital, 399 Bathurst St, Toronto, ON, M5T 2S8. Address e-mail to david.wong{at}uhn.on.ca.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous cricothyroidotomy may be a life-saving procedure in cannot intubate–cannot ventilate situations. In this study we compared the insertion times of a new indicator-guided cricothyroidotomy device and a wire-guided device in mannequins.

METHODS: This study was a crossover trial comparing the insertion times and success rates of an indicator-guided tube-over-needle device and a wire-guided cricothyroidotomy device in a mannequin. After an audiovisual training session, 64 anesthesiologists performed five cricothyroidotomies with each of the two devices. Successful insertion was defined as insertion of a device into the correct anatomic location. The insertion times and success rates between the two techniques for the five attempts were compared using repeated measures ANOVA, paired t-test, and {chi}2 analyses.

RESULTS: Insertion times were faster (32.6 ± 14.9 s vs 42.3 ± 12.5 s, P < 0.001) while success rates were similar (95% vs 93.1%) with the indicator-guided device when compared with the wire-guided device. For both devices, performance improved with repeated attempts. Four insertion attempts (1.3%) were positioned anterior or posterior to the trachea lumen with the indicator-guided device compared to none with the wire-guided device (P = 0.12) Subjectively, more participants chose to use the wire-guided than the indicator-guided device (59% vs 31%, P < 0.001) in a clinical emergency situation.

CONCLUSION: In a mannequin model, cricothyroidotomy insertion times were faster for the indicator-guided technique than for the wire-guided technique, but success rates were similar. Subjectively, more participants chose to use the wire-guided device in a clinical emergency situation.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JWatch Emergency Med.Home page
Seldinger Cricothyrotomy Kit Preferred to New Tube-over-Needle Device
Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, July 27, 2007; 2007(727): 2 - 2.
[Full Text]


Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2007 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.