Ohchi Fumihiro, Komasawa Nobuyasu, Mihara Ryosuke, Minami Toshiaki
Department of Anesthesiology, Osaka Medical College, Daigaku-machi 2-7, Takatsuki, Osaka 569-8686 Japan.
Springerplus. 2015 May 2;4:211. doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-0982-y. eCollection 2015.
During resuscitation, when it is difficult or impossible to establish peripheral venous access, intraosseous route (IO) is considered as an alternative to a central venous line. However, it is sometimes difficult for obtain IO access with conventional manual bone puncture needle. Recently, powered mechanical bone marrow needle was developed. We compared the performance of the manual and mechanical bone marrow puncture needle for adult, child and infant simulation.
22 anesthesiologists, who has never used bone marrow puncture needle, performed manual (Dickman™, Cook Medical) or mechanical (EZ-IO™, Teleflex) bone marrow puncture to simulated adult, child and infant tibia. Puncture success rate, insertion time, and subjective difficulty utilizing visual analogue scale was assessed.
In adult settings, with the manual bone marrow needle, only 3 of 22 participants could succeed in the IO route keep, while all participants did in the mechanical bone marrow puncture needle (P < 0.001). In child and infant settings, all trials were successful in both manual and mechanical bone marrow puncture needles (P = 1.00). In adult simulations, IO insertion took significantly longer with manual bone marrow puncture (54.8 ± 15.8 s) than without compressions (3.7 ± 2.1 s; P < 0.001). In child and infant simulations, the IO insertion time was significantly smaller in mechanical trials than in manual ones (child simulation; manual 9.3 ± 4.6 s, mechanical 2.2 ± 0.8 s, P < 0.001, infant simulation; manual 2.0 ± 1.1 s, mechanical 1.5 ± 0.8 s, P = 0.003). Although the VAS score was not significantly higher with manual trials than in mechanical trials among the three simulations (adult simulation, P < 0.001, child simulation, P < 0.001, infant simulation P = 0.006).
We conclude that in simulations managed by anesthesiologists who had no clinical experiences with bone marrow puncture, the mechanical bone puncture needle performed better than the manual one for emergency IO route access.
在复苏过程中,当难以或无法建立外周静脉通路时,骨内途径(IO)被视为中心静脉置管的替代方法。然而,使用传统的手动骨髓穿刺针有时很难获得骨内通路。最近,动力机械骨髓针被开发出来。我们比较了手动和机械骨髓穿刺针在成人、儿童和婴儿模拟中的性能。
22名从未使用过骨髓穿刺针的麻醉医生,对模拟的成人、儿童和婴儿胫骨进行手动(Dickman™,库克医疗)或机械(EZ-IO™,泰利福)骨髓穿刺。评估穿刺成功率、插入时间以及使用视觉模拟量表评估的主观难度。
在成人模拟中,使用手动骨髓针时,22名参与者中只有3人能够成功建立骨内通路,而使用机械骨髓穿刺针的所有参与者均成功(P<0.001)。在儿童和婴儿模拟中,手动和机械骨髓穿刺针的所有试验均成功(P = 1.00)。在成人模拟中,手动骨髓穿刺的骨内插入时间(54.8±15.8秒)明显长于无按压时(3.7±2.1秒;P<0.001)。在儿童和婴儿模拟中,机械试验的骨内插入时间明显短于手动试验(儿童模拟;手动9.3±4.6秒,机械2.2±0.8秒,P<0.001,婴儿模拟;手动2.0±1.1秒,机械1,5±0.8秒,P = 0.003)。尽管在三种模拟中,手动试验的视觉模拟量表评分并不显著高于机械试验(成人模拟,P<0.001,儿童模拟,P<0.001,婴儿模拟P = 0.006)。
我们得出结论:在没有骨髓穿刺临床经验的麻醉医生进行的模拟中,机械骨髓穿刺针在紧急骨内通路方面的表现优于手动骨髓穿刺针。