Poole Oliver, Vargo Michael, Zhang JinBin, Hung Orlando
Department of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine, Dalhousie University, Victoria General Hospital, 1276 South Park St. Halifax Nova Scotia, Canada.
Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore.
Can J Respir Ther. 2017 Spring;53(2):29-32. Epub 2017 May 1.
Cricothyrotomy can either be performed by an "open" cricothyrotomy technique, or by a needle (Seldinger) technique. Clinical uncertainty exists regarding which technique is more effective. We compared three different techniques for cricothyrotomy, performed by anesthesiologists on a manikin.
The techniques studied include an open surgical technique, the Melker Cricothyrotomy kit (Cook), and the Portex Cricothyroidotomy Kit (Smiths Medical). Participants were randomized to the order they performed each technique. Each procedure was videotaped and the time to first ventilation recorded. The participants completed a 10-point scale following the performance of all techniques to assess the subjective level of difficulty of each technique and to indicate which technique they would prefer in a real clinical CICO scenario.
Mean time to ventilation was significantly faster with the surgical cricothyrotomy technique, when compared with both the Portex and Melker techniques (Mean difference: Portex-surgical = 18 s, 95% CI (1, 36) and Melker-surgical = 42 s, 95% CI (31, 54)). The Portex technique was significantly faster than the Melker technique (Melker-Portex = 24 s, 95% CI (11, 37)). Six of the 11 (55%) participants preferred the Melker procedure, four (36%) preferred the surgical procedure, and only one anesthesiologist (9%) preferred the Portex procedure.
The surgical technique was faster than both the Portex and Melker techniques. The surgical technique was also more successful than the Melker technique. The preferred technique among the participants was the Melker technique, despite being the slowest, least successful, and rated most difficult by participants and observers. This suggests that although the surgical technique may not be preferred by many airway practitioners, it has been shown to be the most likely technique to achieve the primary goal of the procedure: establishing oxygenation and preventing death.
This research examines three techniques for cricothyrotomy in the "Can't Intubate, Can't Oxygenate" scenario. Our data, as well as data from other studies, suggest that a practice shift towards a surgical technique, and away from needle based techniques, may be warranted.
环甲膜切开术可通过“开放”环甲膜切开术技术或针(塞尔丁格)技术进行。关于哪种技术更有效存在临床不确定性。我们比较了麻醉医生在人体模型上进行的三种不同的环甲膜切开术技术。
所研究的技术包括开放手术技术、梅尔克尔环甲膜切开术套件(库克公司)和波特克斯环甲膜切开术套件(史密斯医疗公司)。参与者被随机分配执行每种技术的顺序。每个操作过程都进行了录像,并记录首次通气的时间。在完成所有技术操作后,参与者完成一个10分制量表,以评估每种技术的主观难度水平,并指出在实际临床“无法插管、无法给氧”(CICO)情况下他们更喜欢哪种技术。
与波特克斯技术和梅尔克尔技术相比,手术环甲膜切开术技术的平均通气时间明显更快(平均差异:波特克斯技术 - 手术技术 = 18秒,95%置信区间(1, 36);梅尔克尔技术 - 手术技术 = 42秒,95%置信区间(31, 54))。波特克斯技术比梅尔克尔技术明显更快(梅尔克尔技术 - 波特克斯技术 = 24秒,95%置信区间(11, 37))。11名参与者中有6名(55%)更喜欢梅尔克尔操作,四名(36%)更喜欢手术操作,只有一名麻醉医生(9%)更喜欢波特克斯操作。
手术技术比波特克斯技术和梅尔克尔技术都更快。手术技术也比梅尔克尔技术更成功。参与者中首选的技术是梅尔克尔技术,尽管它是最慢、最不成功且参与者和观察者认为最难的技术。这表明,尽管许多气道从业者可能不首选手术技术,但它已被证明是最有可能实现该操作主要目标的技术:建立氧合并预防死亡。
本研究考察了“无法插管、无法给氧”情况下的三种环甲膜切开术技术。我们的数据以及其他研究的数据表明,可能有必要从基于针的技术转向手术技术。