ABSTRACT
The authors report the case of an elder woman involved in a motor vehicle collision (MVC) requiring emergent intubation using the technique of retrograde intubation (RI). Since RI is a blind technique, potential complications arising from its use are numerous and may result in increased morbidity and mortality. Such was the case of this RI that involved incorrect placement of the endotracheal tube (ETT), resulting in suboptimal ventilation and increased morbidity. Additionally, this case illustrates how the failure to detect this error in multiple settings (ambulance, helicopter, emergency department) led to unnecessary and potentially deleterious procedures and significant delay in providing the basics of trauma care, oxygenation and ventilation. Although theoretical complications of RI have been addressed in the past, there have been very few published reports of actual complications. The emergency physician must be aware of difficult airways, options available to establish alternative airways, and methods to confirm appropriate placement of the ETT. The authors also discuss the indications, procedures, and complications involved in performing an RI.
Subject(s)
Airway Obstruction/etiology , Craniocerebral Trauma/therapy , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Medical Errors , Accidents, Traffic , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Airway Obstruction/diagnosis , Craniocerebral Trauma/diagnosis , Emphysema/etiology , Fatal Outcome , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Mouth , Resuscitation/adverse effects , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , TracheotomyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Since the results of the Second National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study were published in 1990, methylprednisolone has become a mainstay in the treatment of nonpenetrating spinal cord injury. Although potential significant relationships between the prompt administration of high-dose methylprednisolone after blunt spinal cord injury and outcome have recently been addressed, the relationship between the prompt administration of high-dose methylprednisolone after penetrating spinal cord injury and outcome remain unanswered. METHODS: To explore this relationship, we performed a retrospective nonrandomized study on a series of 252 patients with penetrating missile injuries to the spine who presented to our institution from March 1980 to July 1993. One hundred eighty-one patients (71%) were treated conventionally without adjunctive steroid therapy before 1990. Sixteen patients followed up during the 13-year study period received steroid protocols that were not consistent with the Second National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study protocol and were excluded from the study. Since 1990, 55 patients (21%) were treated with intravenous methylprednisolone according to the Second National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study protocol. All patients were subsequently transferred for rehabilitative care, and prospective evaluations of their neurological status were performed at admission and discharge. RESULTS: The study included 236 men and 16 women (mean age, 25.6 yr). The mean duration of stay for initial hospitalization was 94.6 days, and the mean duration of stay in rehabilitation was 78.6 days. Frankel scores were used to assess outcome (P < 0.05) and were assessed at admission and at the time of definitive discharge from the Spinal Cord Injury Care System. The hypothesis that methylprednisolone therapy significantly improves functional outcomes in patients with gunshot wound injuries to the spine was rejected. Only the total number of days in rehabilitation and the degree of neurological injury at admission contributed significantly to explaining outcome at discharge. CONCLUSION: The administration of methylprednisolone did not significantly improve functional outcomes in patients with gunshot wound injuries to the spine or increase the number of complications experienced by patients during their hospitalizations.
