We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Comparison of three cuffed emergency percutaneous cricothyroidotomy devices to conventional surgical cricothyroidotomy in a porcine model.
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011 January
BACKGROUND: Emergency cricothyroidotomy is a potentially life-saving procedure in the 'cannot intubate cannot ventilate (CICV)' scenario. Although surgical cricothyroidotomy remains the technique recommended in many 'CICV' algorithms, the insertion of a tracheostomy as a cannula over a trocar, or using the Seldinger method, may have advantages as they are more familiar to the anaesthetist. We compared the utility of three cuffed cricothyroidotomy devices: cuffed Melker®, Quicktrach 2®, and PCK® devices, with surgical cricothyroidotomy.
METHODS: After ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 20 anaesthetists performed cricothyroidotomy with all four devices in random order, in a pig larynx and trachea model covered in cured pelt. The primary endpoints were the rate of successful placement of the cricothyroidotomy device into the trachea and the duration of the insertion attempt.
RESULTS: The Melker® and Quicktrach 2® devices possessed advantages over the surgical approach, in contrast to the PCK® device, which performed less well. All 20 participants inserted the Melker®, with 19 being successful using the surgical approach and the Quicktrach 2®, whereas only 12 successfully inserted the PCK® device (PCK® vs surgical, P=0.02). The Quicktrach 2® had the fastest insertion times and caused least trauma to the posterior tracheal wall. The Melker® was rated highest by the participants and was the only device rated higher than the surgical technique.
CONCLUSIONS: The Melker® and Quicktrach 2® devices appear to hold particular promise as alternatives to surgical cricothyroidotomy. Further studies, in more clinically relevant models, are required to confirm these initial positive findings.
METHODS: After ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 20 anaesthetists performed cricothyroidotomy with all four devices in random order, in a pig larynx and trachea model covered in cured pelt. The primary endpoints were the rate of successful placement of the cricothyroidotomy device into the trachea and the duration of the insertion attempt.
RESULTS: The Melker® and Quicktrach 2® devices possessed advantages over the surgical approach, in contrast to the PCK® device, which performed less well. All 20 participants inserted the Melker®, with 19 being successful using the surgical approach and the Quicktrach 2®, whereas only 12 successfully inserted the PCK® device (PCK® vs surgical, P=0.02). The Quicktrach 2® had the fastest insertion times and caused least trauma to the posterior tracheal wall. The Melker® was rated highest by the participants and was the only device rated higher than the surgical technique.
CONCLUSIONS: The Melker® and Quicktrach 2® devices appear to hold particular promise as alternatives to surgical cricothyroidotomy. Further studies, in more clinically relevant models, are required to confirm these initial positive findings.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app