Using a 10-point Likert scale (1-easiest, 10-hardest) participants rated the ease of use of the Reactor™ no different from the standard method (3.8 ± 1.9 vs.
32 mm, interquartile range 26–40, P = 0.0034) compared to the standard technique. 76.9 s, interquartile range 55.3–106.9, P < 0.0001) and shorter median incision length (28 mm, interquartile range 23–30 vs. The Reactor™ was associated with less frequent appropriate tube positioning (41.3% vs. Sixteen subjects were enrolled (7 medical students, 9 paramedics) and performed 92 chest tube insertions ( n = 46 Reactor™, n = 46 standard). After completing the study, participants rated various aspects of use of the Reactor™ compared to the standard technique in a survey evaluation. Insertion time and user-rated difficulty were documented in an unblinded fashion. Adequacy of tube placement (intrapleural, unkinked, not in fissure) and incision length were recorded by investigators blinded to procedural technique.
CHEST TUBE INSERTION NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE SKIN
Insertion site, which was randomly assigned within each cadaver’s hemithorax, was marked by the investigators study techniques began with skin incision and ended with tube insertion. All subjects received standardized training in both procedures prior to randomization. Novice users were randomly assigned to pre-specified sequences of six chest tube insertions performed on a human cadaver model in a crossover design, alternating between the Reactor™ and standard technique. We sought to compare the efficacy of chest tube insertion using a novel, endoscopic device (The Reactor™) to standard, open tube thoracostomy. Alternative procedural methods may be beneficial in certain prehospital and inpatient environments with limited resources. The technique of tube thoracostomy has been standardized for years without significant updates.
0 kommentar(er)
