• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用刀具和多用工具进行尸体肢体截断。

Use of Knives and Multitools to Perform a Cadaveric Limb Amputation.

出版信息

J Spec Oper Med. 2022 Spring;22(1):71-75. doi: 10.55460/Y31C-V4OI.

DOI:10.55460/Y31C-V4OI
PMID:35278317
Abstract

BACKGROUND

An austere field amputation can be a life-saving procedure for an entrapped patient when standard equipment is not available or operable. The objective of this study was to use hand tools to perform cadaveric amputations in < 2 minutes.

METHODS

Timed guillotine amputation of the extremities on three cadavers was attempted using four available hand tools: a multitool, a rescue tool, a hunting knife, and a fixedblade knife. The primary outcome was successful amputation of the extremity in < 2 minutes.

RESULTS

Amputation success was different among the tools. The multitool amputated 78% of attempts; the hunting knife, 67%; the rescue knife, 56%; and the fixed-blade knife, 44%. The distal tibia/fibula and radius/ ulna were amputated successfully in 100% of attempts, whereas none of the tools could amputate the femur. The multitool received the best subjective ranking - 1.4 (p = .001) - by amputators, with the fixed-blade knife receiving the worst score.

CONCLUSIONS

In the rare circumstance that an emergent field amputation requires a hand tool, the multitool is a capable instrument for a distal extremity amputation.

摘要

背景

在标准设备不可用或无法操作的情况下,对被困患者进行简陋的野外截肢术可能是一种救生程序。本研究的目的是使用手动工具在<2 分钟内完成尸体截肢。

方法

尝试使用四种可用的手动工具(多用工具、救援工具、猎刀和固定刀片刀)对三个尸体的四肢进行定时断头截肢。主要结果是成功地在<2 分钟内完成肢体截肢。

结果

不同工具的截肢成功率不同。多用工具截肢成功率为 78%;猎刀为 67%;救援刀为 56%;固定刀片刀为 44%。100%的尝试都成功地切断了胫骨/腓骨和桡骨/尺骨,但没有一种工具可以切断股骨。截肢者对多用工具的主观评分最高-1.4(p=0.001),而固定刀片刀的评分最差。

结论

在紧急野外截肢需要手动工具的罕见情况下,多用工具是一种用于远端肢体截肢的有效工具。

相似文献

1
Use of Knives and Multitools to Perform a Cadaveric Limb Amputation.使用刀具和多用工具进行尸体肢体截断。
J Spec Oper Med. 2022 Spring;22(1):71-75. doi: 10.55460/Y31C-V4OI.
2
Practical assessment of different saw types for field amputation: A cadaver-based study.不同锯类型在野外截肢中实际应用的评估:基于尸体的研究。
Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Jul;45:11-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.02.034. Epub 2021 Feb 21.
3
Man or machine? An experimental study of prehospital emergency amputation.人还是机器?院前紧急截肢的一项实验研究。
Emerg Med J. 2016 Sep;33(9):641-4. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2015-204881. Epub 2016 Jun 8.
4
'Time critical' rapid amputation using fire service hydraulic cutting equipment.使用消防部门的水力切割设备进行“时间关键”的快速截肢。
Injury. 2011 Nov;42(11):1333-5. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.05.002. Epub 2011 Jun 1.
5
Amputation of a lower extremity after severe trauma.严重创伤后下肢截肢
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2011 Oct;23(4):306-17. doi: 10.1007/s00064-011-0043-9.
6
Health-related quality of life in patients with transtibial amputation and reconstruction with bone bridging of the distal tibia and fibula.经胫骨截肢并采用胫腓骨远端骨桥接重建患者的健康相关生活质量
Foot Ankle Int. 2006 Nov;27(11):907-12. doi: 10.1177/107110070602701107.
7
Management of an Entrapped Patient with a Field Amputation.野外截肢被困患者的处理
J Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;54(1):90-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.08.097. Epub 2017 Nov 6.
8
Biomechanical analysis of curb ascent in persons with Ertl and non-Ertl transtibial amputations.Ertl型与非Ertl型经胫骨截肢者路缘上升的生物力学分析。
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020 Feb;44(1):36-43. doi: 10.1177/0309364619885717. Epub 2019 Nov 12.
9
Influence of Immediate and Delayed Lower-Limb Amputation Compared with Lower-Limb Salvage on Functional and Mental Health Outcomes Post-Rehabilitation in the U.K. Military.英国军人康复后下肢立即截肢与保肢对功能和心理健康结果的影响。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Dec 7;98(23):1996-2005. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.01210.
10
Guillotine amputation in the treatment of nonsalvageable lower-extremity infections.断头术截肢术治疗不可挽救的下肢感染
Arch Surg. 1984 Apr;119(4):450-3. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1984.01390160080016.