We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Field amputations are a low-frequency, high-risk procedure. Many prehospital personnel utilize the reciprocating saw. This study compares the efficiency, speed, and degree of tissue damage of different reciprocating saw blades found commercially.
Methods:
Amputations were performed on two human cadavers at different levels of the upper and lower extremities. Four different blades were used, each with a different teeth-per-inch (TPI) design. The amputations were timed, blade temperature was recorded, subjective operator effort was obtained, amount of splatter was evaluated, and an orthopedic physician evaluated the extent of tissue damage and operating room repair difficulty.
Results:
The blade with fourteen TPI was superior in overall speed to complete the amputations at 1.07 seconds per one centimeter of tissue (SD = 0.49 seconds) and had the lowest fail rate (0/8 amputations). The three TPI, six TPI, and ten TPI blades all required a “rescue” technique and were slower. The blade with fourteen TPI caused the least amount of tissue damage and was deemed the easiest to repair. Secondary outcomes demonstrated the fourteen TPI blade had generated the least amount of heat and produced the least amount of splatter. All blades had a perceived effort of “easy” to complete the amputation.
Conclusion:
While all blades were able to achieve an amputation, the overall recommendation is use of a fourteen TPI blade. It did not require any rescue techniques, provided the most straightforward amputation to repair, had the least amount of biohazard splatter and temperature increase, and was the fastest blade overall.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.