首页> 外文期刊>Prehospital emergency care >Randomized Comparative Assessment of Three Surgical Cricothyrotomy Devices on Airway Mannequins
【24h】

Randomized Comparative Assessment of Three Surgical Cricothyrotomy Devices on Airway Mannequins

机译:三条外科手术术语在气道时装模特的随机比较评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background: Airway obstruction is the second leading cause of preventable battlefield death, at least in part because surgical cricothyrotomy (SC) failure rates remain unacceptably high. Ideally, SC should be a rapid, simple, easily-learned, and reliably-performed procedure. Currently, 3 SC devices meet Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) standards: The Tactical CricKit (R) (TCK), Control-Cric(TM) (CC), and Bougie-assisted Technique (BAT). However, no previous studies have compared these devices in application time, application success, user ratings, and user preference. Methods: United States Navy Corpsmen (N = 25) were provided 15 minutes of standardized instruction, followed by hands-on practice with each device on airway mannequins. Participants then performed SC with each of the 3 devices in a randomly assigned sequence. In this within-subjects design, application time, application success, participant ratings, and participant preference data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA, regression, and non-parametric statistics at p < 0.05. Results: Application time for CC (M = 184 sec, 95% CI 144-225 sec) was significantly slower than for BAT (M = 135 sec, 95% CI 113-158 sec, p < 0.03) and TCK (M = 117 sec, 95% CI 93-142 sec, p < 0.005). Success was significantly greater for BAT (76%) than for TCK (40%, p < 0.02) and trended greater than CC (48%, p = 0.07). CC was rated significantly lower than TCK and BAT in ease of application, effectiveness, and reliability (each p < 0.01). User preference was significantly (p < 0.01) higher for TCK (58%) and BAT (42%) than for CC (0%). Improved CC blade design was the most common user suggestion. Conclusion: While this study was limited by the use of mannequins in a laboratory environment, present results indicate that none of these devices was ideal for performing SC. Based on slow application times, low success rates, and user feedback, the Control-Cric(TM) cannot be recommended until improvements are made to the blade design.
机译:背景:气道阻塞是防预防战场死亡的第二个主要原因,至少部分是因为外科手术(SC)失效率保持不可接受。理想情况下,SC应该是一种快速,简单,易于学习的和可靠的程序。目前,3个SC设备符合战术作战伤员(TCCC)标准:战术克里克特(R)(TCK),控制CRIC(TM)(CC)和Bougie辅助技术(BAT)。但是,之前没有先前的研究在应用程序时间,应用程序成功,用户评级和用户偏好中比较了这些设备。方法:美国海军尸体(N = 25)提供15分钟的标准化指导,随后用动手实践,每种设备都有气道时装模特。然后参与者以随机分配的顺序使用3个设备中的每一个进行SC。在主题内部设计,应用时间,应用程序成功,参与者评级和参与者偏好数据使用P <0.05的重复测量Anova,回归和非参数统计分析。结果:CC的施用时间(M = 184秒,95%CI 144-225秒)比蝙蝠显着较慢(m = 135秒,95%CI 113-158秒,P <0.03)和TCK(M = 117秒,95%CI 93-142秒,P <0.005)。对于蝙蝠(76%)而不是TCK(40%,P <0.02)的成功显着更大,并且趋势大于CC(48%,P = 0.07)。 CC在易于应用,有效性和可靠性(每P <0.01)的情况下,CC的额定大于TCK和蝙蝠。对于TCK(58%)和BAT(42%)而不是CC(0%),用户偏好显着(P <0.01)。改进的CC刀片设计是最常见的用户建议。结论:虽然本研究受到实验室环境中使用人体模型的限制,但目前的结果表明这些设备中没有一个是表演SC的理想选择。基于慢速应用时间,低成功率和用户反馈,无法建议控制CRIC(TM),直到对刀片设计进行改进。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号