Institute of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Department of Anaesthetics, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2020 May 4;15(5):e0232510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232510. eCollection 2020.
In the obese, the evidence for the choice of the optimal emergency front-of-neck access technique is very limited and conflicting. We compared cannula and scalpel-bougie emergency front-of-neck access techniques in an anaesthetised porcine model with thick pretracheal tissue. Cannula and scalpel-bougie cricothyroidotomy techniques were performed in 11 and 12 anaesthetised pigs, respectively. Following successful tracheal access, oxygenation was commenced and continued for 5 min using Rapid-O2 device for cannula and circle breathing system for scalpel-bougie study groups. The primary outcome was a successful rescue oxygenation determined by maintenance of arterial oxygen saturation >90% 5 min after the beginning of oxygenation. Secondary outcomes included success rate of airway device placement, time to successful airway device placement, and trauma to the neck and airway. The success rate of rescue oxygenation was 18% after cannula, and 83% after scalpel-bougie technique (P = 0.003). The success rate of airway device placement was 73% with cannula and 92% with scalpel-bougie technique (P = 0.317). Median (inter-quartile-range) times to successful airway device placement were 108 (30-256) and 90 (63-188) seconds (P = 0.762) for cannula and scalpel-bougie emergency front-of-neck access, respectively. Proportion of animals with iatrogenic trauma additional to the procedure itself was 27% for cannula and 75% for scalpel-bougie technique (P = 0.039). Thus, in the porcine model of obesity, the scalpel-bougie technique was more successful in establishing and maintaining rescue oxygenation than cannula-based technique; however, it was associated with a higher risk of severe trauma.
在肥胖人群中,关于最优紧急经前颈部入路技术选择的证据非常有限且相互矛盾。我们在一个颈部有厚预切开组织的麻醉猪模型中比较了套管和手术刀-引导管紧急经前颈部入路技术。在 11 只和 12 只麻醉猪中分别进行了套管和手术刀-引导管环甲切开术。在成功进行气管通路后,使用 Rapid-O2 装置为套管组和循环呼吸系统为手术刀-引导管组进行 5 分钟的氧合。主要结局是通过维持动脉血氧饱和度>90%来确定氧合抢救是否成功,起始时间为氧合开始后 5 分钟。次要结局包括气道装置放置成功率、成功放置气道装置的时间和颈部及气道创伤。套管组的氧合抢救成功率为 18%,手术刀-引导管组为 83%(P=0.003)。套管组的气道装置放置成功率为 73%,手术刀-引导管组为 92%(P=0.317)。套管和手术刀-引导管紧急经前颈部入路成功放置气道装置的中位数(四分位距)时间分别为 108(30-256)和 90(63-188)秒(P=0.762)。套管组有 27%的动物出现了除手术本身以外的医源性创伤,而手术刀-引导管组则有 75%的动物出现了医源性创伤(P=0.039)。因此,在肥胖猪模型中,与基于套管的技术相比,手术刀-引导管技术在建立和维持抢救氧合方面更成功,但它与更严重的创伤风险相关。