Premium
Percutaneous vs surgical emergency cricothyroidotomy: An experimental randomized crossover study on an animal‐larynx model
Author(s) -
Andresen Åke Erling L.,
KramerJohansen Jo,
Kristiansen Thomas
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
acta anaesthesiologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 107
eISSN - 1399-6576
pISSN - 0001-5172
DOI - 10.1111/aas.13447
Subject(s) - medicine , cricothyrotomy , percutaneous , airway , larynx , airway management , surgery , randomized controlled trial , insertion time
Background Airway management is a paramount clinical skill for the anaesthesiologist. The Emergency Cricothyroidotomy (EC) constitutes the final step in difficult airway algorithms securing a patent airway via a front‐of‐neck access. The main distinction among available techniques is whether the procedure is surgical and scalpel‐based or percutaneous and needle‐based. Methods In an experimental randomized crossover trial, using an animal larynx model, we compared two EC techniques; the Rapid Four Step Technique and the Melker Emergency Cricothyrotomy Kit®. We assessed time expenditure and success rates among 20 anaesthesiologists and related this to previous training, seniority and clinical experience with EC. Results All participants achieved successful airway access with both methods. Average time to successful airway access for scalpel‐based EC was 54 (±31) seconds and for percutaneous EC 89 (±38) seconds, with 35 (95% CI: 14‐57) seconds time difference, P = .003. Doctors with recent (<12 months) EC training performed better compared to the non‐training group (37 vs 61 seconds, P = .03 for scalpel‐based EC, and 65 vs 99 seconds, P = .02 for percutaneous EC). We found no differences according to clinical seniority or previous real‐life EC experience. Conclusions Our study demonstrated that anaesthesiologists achieved successful airway access on an animal experimental model with both EC methods within a reasonable time frame, but the scalpel‐based EC is performed more promptly. Recent EC training affected the time expenditure positively, while seniority and clinical EC experience did not. EC procedures should be regularly trained for.