These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of 2 cricothyrotomy techniques: standard method versus rapid 4-step technique.
    Author: Holmes JF, Panacek EA, Sakles JC, Brofeldt BT.
    Journal: Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Oct; 32(4):442-6. PubMed ID: 9774928.
    Abstract:
    STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the success rate, complication rate and time required for the rapid 4-step technique versus the standard technique for cricothyrotomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized crossover study. Twenty-seven emergency medicine interns, 1 junior medicine resident, and 4 senior medical students, without prior cricothyrotomy experience, were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group 1 was initially instructed in and then performed the standard technique; group 2 was initially instructed in and then performed the rapid 4-step technique. Each group was then instructed in and performed the alternate method. Cricothyrotomies were performed on preserved human cadavers. RESULTS: A surgical airway was established in 28 of 32 attempts with the use of the rapid 4-step technique (88%); the average time elapsed before tube placement was 43 seconds. Thirty of 32 attempts involving the standard technique (94%) were successful; the average time to tube placement was 134 seconds (95% confidence interval for a difference of 91 seconds, 63 to 119; P < .001). Complications were identified in 12 attempts involving the standard technique (38%; 1 considered major) and in 12 involving the rapid four-step technique (38%; 3 considered major). The incidence of major complications was 6% higher for the rapid 4-step technique (95% confidence interval, -9% to 21%). CONCLUSION: In a group of inexperienced subjects working on a preserved human cadaver model, the rapid 4-step technique for cricothyrotomy was performed in about one third the time required for performance of the standard technique. This finding was both clinically and statistically significant. Although the 2 techniques had similar success and complication rates, we noted a trend toward more severe complications in the rapid 4-step technique.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]