Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:03:26.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergency Cricothyrotomy in Confined Space Airway Emergencies: A Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2011

Gregory C. Givens ,
Stephen L. Shelton  and
Eric A. Brown
Gregory C. Givens*
Affiliation:
Palmetto Health Richland, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
Stephen L. Shelton
Affiliation:
Palmetto Health Richland, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
Eric A. Brown
Affiliation:
Palmetto Health Richland, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
*
Correspondence: E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction: In confined-space airway emergencies, prehospital personnel may need to perform cricothyrotomy when conventional airway techniques cannot be utilized or have failed. This study is a prospective, cross-over, randomized controlled trial that compares two widely-known techniques using two commercially available kits.

Methods: Twenty residents at Palmetto Health Richland Department of Emergency Medicine participated in the study. Their performance was assessed using the time required to placement and correctness of placement for each device. The residents performed the procedures on an Air-Man™ manikin that had been situated in a confined space. The residents also indicated which kit they would prefer in a confined-space, emergency airway situation.

Results: All of the devices were placed in the airway. The mean time to placement for the Melker™ and Quicktrach™ kits was 108.5 seconds and 23.9 seconds, respectively. This yielded a mean difference of 84.5 seconds, which provided a t-statistic of 8.88 (p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of a carry-over effect (p = 0.292) or a period effect (p = 0.973). All residents preferred using the Quicktrach™ kit.

Conclusions: Use of the Quicktrach™ kit resulted in the fastest time to placement, was placed correctly in the airway, and was preferred by each of the residents. Its small, simple, and sturdy design, with few parts and easy manipulation, allow the Quicktrach™ to be a valuable option in prehospital situations involving confined spaces. The Melker™ kit, with its many parts, and need for greater manipulation, is not as easily utilized or preferred in a confined space scenario.

Keywords

airwayconfined spacecricothyrotomydisasterMelker™prehospitalQuicktrach™
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , August 2011 , pp. 259 - 261
Copyright
Copyright Givens © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fikkers, BG, van Vugh, S, van der Hoeven, JG, van den Hoogen, FJA, Marres, HAM: Emergency cricothyrotomy: A randomized crossover trial comparing the wire-guided and catheter-over-needle techniques. Anaesthesia 2004;59(10):1008–1011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craven, RM, Vanner, RG: Ventilation of a model lung using various cricothyrotomy devices. Anaesthesia 2004;59(6):595–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadodaria, BS, Gandi, SD, McIndoe, AK: Comparison of four different emergency airway access equipment sets on a human patient simulator. Anaesthesia 2004;59(1):73–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, JR, Hedges, JR (eds), Clinical Procedures in Emergency Medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co., 2004, pp 115–130.Google Scholar