Austere Fasciotomy: Alternative Equipment for Performance in the Field.

BACKGROUND: Acute compartment syndrome (ACS) following extremity trauma requires rapid fasciotomy to avoid significant morbidity and limb loss. Four-compartment fasciotomy of the leg is a surgical procedure typically performed in the operating room; however, casualties who cannot be rapidly transported may need fasciotomies in the prehospital setting. In the absence of traditional operating instruments (e.g., scalpel, long Metzenbaum scissors, electrocautery), alternative means of fasciotomy may be needed. We undertook a proof-of-concept study using cadaver models to determine whether leg fasciotomies could be performed with alternative devices compared with the surgical standard. METHODS: Two-incision, four-compartment fasciotomies were performed on fresh, never-frozen, non-embalmed cadaver legs using a scalpel for the initial skin incision, followed by release of the fascia using one of the following instruments: 5.5-in curved Mayo scissors; Benchmade rescue hook (model BM-5BLKW); rescue hook on the Leatherman Raptor multitool (model 831741-FFP); Leatherman Z-Rex multitool rescue hook (model LM93408); or No. 10 PenBlade (model PB-M-10- CAS). The procedures were performed by a surgeon. Skin and fascia incisional lengths were recorded along with a subjective impression of the performance for each device. Post-procedural dissection was performed to identify associated injuries to the muscle, superficial peroneal nerve, and the greater saphenous vein (GSV). RESULTS: All devices were able to adequately release the fascia in all four compartments. All rescue hooks (Benchmade, Raptor, and Z-Rex) required a "pull technique" and a skin incision of equal length to the fascia incision. The PenBlade was used in a "push technique," similar to the standard scissor fasciotomy through a smaller skin incision. There was one superficial peroneal nerve transection with the rescue hooks, but there were no GSV injuries or significant muscle damage with any instrument. CONCLUSION: Four-compartment fasciotomy can be performed with readily available alternative equipment such as rescue hooks and the PenBlade. Hook-type devices require longer skin incisions compared with scissors and the PenBlade. In contested environments, patients with ACS may require fasciotomy prior to evacuation to surgical teams; training combat medics in the use of these alternative instruments in the field may preserve life and limb.

Distal femur versus humeral or tibial IO, access in adult out of hospital cardiac resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Intraosseous (IO) vascular access is a well-established method for fluid and drug administration in the critically ill. The Food and Drug Administration has approved adult IO access at the proximal humerus, proximal tibia, and the sternum; all three sites have significant limitations. The Distal Femur is away from the chest, with high flow rates. The objective of this study was to evaluate the distal femur site during resuscitation of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adult out of hospital cardiac arrest patients treated by the San Antonio Fire Department. IO access was obtained by first-responders (paramedics or EMT-basic) or EMS paramedics. All resuscitation attempts from 2017 to 2018 data were analyzed. The protocol did not dictate the preference of IO site. The primary measure: number of OHCA patients in each subgroup: IO femur, IO humerus, IO tibia. Secondary measures: paramedic or basic operator, dislodgement rate, and total fluid infused. RESULTS: There were 2,198 patients meeting inclusion criteria: 888 femur, 696 humerus, 432 tibia. Distal femur increased 2.5 times in the 2018 cohort compared to the 2017 cohort, with a corresponding decrease in humerus (factor of 0.29). Proximal tibia remained unchanged. Dislodgement rates and total infusion (ml) remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The distal femur IO was feasible and associated with similar measured performance parameters as other IO sites in adult OHCA for both advanced and basic life support personnel.

A randomized control hands-on defibrillation study-Barrier use evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Chest compressions and defibrillation are the only therapies proven to increase survival in cardiac arrest. Historically, rescuers must remove hands to shock, thereby interrupting chest compressions. This hands-off time results in a zero blood flow state. Pauses have been associated with poorer neurological recovery. METHODS: This was a blinded randomized control cadaver study evaluating the detection of defibrillation during manual chest compressions. An active defibrillator was connected to the cadaver in the sternum-apex configuration. The sham defibrillator was not connected to the cadaver. Subjects performed chest compressions using 6 barrier types: barehand, single and double layer nitrile gloves, firefighter gloves, neoprene pad, and a manual chest compression/decompression device. Randomized defibrillations (10 per barrier type) were delivered at 30 joules (J) for bare hand and 360J for all other barriers. After each shock, the subject indicated degree of sensation on a VAS scale. RESULTS: Ten subjects participated. All subjects detected 30j shocks during barehand compressions, with only 1 undetected real shock. All barriers combined totaled 500 shocks delivered. Five (1%) active shocks were detected, 1(0.2%) single layer of Nitrile, 3(0.6%) with double layer nitrile, and 1(0.2%) with the neoprene barrier. One sham shock was reported with the single layer nitrile glove. No shocks were detected with fire gloves or compression decompression device. All shocks detected barely perceptible (0.25(±0.05)cm on 10cm VAS scale). CONCLUSIONS: Nitrile gloves and neoprene pad prevent (99%) responder's detection of defibrillation of a cadaver. Fire gloves and compression decompression device prevented detection.

A comparison of two open surgical cricothyroidotomy techniques by military medics using a cadaver model.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The CricKey is a novel surgical cricothyroidotomy device combining the functions of a tracheal hook, stylet, dilator, and bougie incorporated with a Melker airway cannula. This study compares surgical cricothyroidotomy with standard open surgical versus CricKey technique. METHODS: This was a prospective crossover study using human cadaveric models. Participants included US Army combat medics credentialed at the emergency medical technician-basic level. After a brief anatomy review and demonstration, participants performed in random order standard open surgical cricothyroidotomy and CricKey surgical cricothyroidotomy. The primary outcome was first-pass success, and the secondary outcome measure was procedural time. RESULTS: First-attempt success was 100% (15/15) for CricKey surgical cricothyroidotomy and 66% (10/15) for open surgical cricothyroidotomy (odds ratio 16.0; 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 326). Surgical cricothyroidotomy insertion was faster for CricKey than open technique (34 versus 65 seconds; median time difference 28 seconds; 95% confidence interval 16 to 48 seconds). CONCLUSION: Compared with the standard open surgical cricothyroidotomy technique, military medics demonstrated faster insertion with the CricKey. First-pass success was not significantly different between the techniques.

Paramedics successfully perform humeral EZ-IO intraosseous access in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

OBJECTIVE: Studies on humeral placement of the EZ-IO (Vidacare, Shavano Park, TX, USA) have shown mixed results. We performed a study to determine the first-attempt success rate at humeral placement of the EZ-IO by paramedics among prehospital adult cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of data prospectively collected over a 9-month period. Data are a subset extracted from a prehospital cardiac arrest study. The cohort consisted of adult cardiac arrest patients in whom the EZ-IO placement was attempted in the humerus by paramedics. Choice of vascular access was at the discretion of the paramedic; options included tibial or humeral EZ-IO and intravenous. Primary outcome is the percentage of successful placements (stable, flow, without extravasation) on first attempt. Secondary outcomes are overall successful placement, complications, and reason for failure. Data were collected during a post-cardiac arrest interview. RESULTS: Humeral intraosseous (IO) access was attempted in 61% (n = 247) of 405 cardiac arrests evaluated with mean age of 63 (±16) years, 58% male. First-attempt successful placement was 91%. Successful placement was 94%, considering the second attempts. In the unsuccessful attempts, 2% reported obesity as the cause, 1% reported stable placement without flow, and 2% reported undocumented causes for failure. There were also 2% reports of successful placement with subsequent dislodgement. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest a high degree of paramedic proficiency in establishment of IO access in the proximal humerus of the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Few complications suggest that proximal humeral IO access is a reliable method for vascular access in this patient population.