Comparison of Point-of-Care Ultrasound Guidance and the Traditional Approach in Performing Simulated Emergent Cricothyroidotomy Among Emergency Medicine Physicians, Residents, and Students.

Objective  Emergency cricothyroidotomy (EC) is a rare procedure used to establish airway access when both endotracheal intubation and bag-mask ventilation have failed. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been proposed as an adjunct to aid in identifying anatomical landmarks. However, its impact on emergency physicians when performing EC remains unclear. This study compared emergency physician and student confidence, preference, and procedure time between POCUS and traditional palpation for EC.  Methods  Our study utilized a randomized controlled crossover design. Emergency medicine providers attended a didactic lecture demonstrating traditional palpation and POCUS techniques for EC. The participants were randomly allocated to two simulation groups. One group started with the palpation of landmarks, while the other group started with POCUS landmark identification. A randomized crossover design was employed, and in a subsequent simulation, the reverse technique was utilized. Time to anatomic landmark identification was recorded. Participants completed a survey assessing their confidence and preference. Procedure times and confidence level differences were examined via Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.  Results  Sixteen participants completed the survey and were included in the final analysis. All participants successfully performed EC with the two landmark identification techniques. There was no significant difference in self-reported confidence between POCUS and palpation (p = 0.17). Landmark identification by palpation was significantly faster than POCUS (p = 0.001). A total of 10 (63%) participants preferred palpation over POCUS.  Conclusions  Both POCUS and traditional palpation were effective in identifying anatomical landmarks for EC. Although palpation was significantly quicker, confidence and preference between the two techniques were similar. The results suggest that both approaches can benefit clinical practice, depending on the context and provider familiarity. Further studies with larger cohorts and real-world scenarios are recommended to explore the effectiveness and safety of POCUS in EC.