Dilday J, Heidenreich B, Spitzer H, Abuhakmeh Y, Ahnfeldt E, Watt J, Mase VJ. 22(4). 41 - 45. (Journal Article)
Abstract
Background: Tube thoracostomy is the most effective treatment for pneumothorax, and on the battlefield, is lifesaving. In combat, far-forward adoption of open thoracostomy has not been successful. Therefore, the ability to safely and reliably perform chest tube insertion in the far-forward combat theatre would be of significant value. The Reactor is a hand-held device for tube thoracostomy that has been validated for tension pneumothorax compared to needle decompression. Here we investigate whether the Reactor has potential for simple pneumothorax compared to open thoracostomy. Treatment of pneumothorax before tension physiology ensues is critical. Methods: Simple pneumothoraces were created in 5 in-vivo swine models and confirmed with x-ray. Interventions were randomized to open technique (OT, n = 25) and Reactor (RT, n = 25). Post-procedure radiography was used to confirm tube placement and pneumothorax resolution. Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) was used to evaluate for iatrogenic injuries. 50 chest tubes were placed, with 25 per group. Results: There were no statistical differences between the groups for insertion time, pneumothorax resolution, or estimated blood loss (p = .91 and .83). Injury rates between groups varied, with 28% (n = 7) in the Reactor group and 8% (n = 2) the control group (p = .06). The most common injury was violation of visceral pleura (10%, n = 5, both groups) and violation of the mediastinum (8%, n = 4, both groups). Conclusion: The Reactor device was equal compared to open thoracostomy for insertion time, pneumothorax resolution, and injury rates. The device required smaller incisions compared to tube thoracostomy and may be useful adjunct in simple pneumothorax management.
Keywords: chest tube; thoracostomy; pneumothorax
Getz C, Stuart SM, Barbour BM, Verga JM, Roszko PJ, Friedrich EE. 22(4). 50 - 54. (Journal Article)
Abstract
Background: Surgical cricothyrotomy (SC) is a difficult procedure with high failure rates in the battlefield environment. The difficulty of this procedure is compounded in a low-light tactical environment in which white light cannot be used. This study compared the use of red-green (RG) light and red (R) light in the performance of SC in a low-light environment. Materials and Methods: Tactical Combat Casualty Care-certified navy corpsmen (n = 33) were provided 15 minutes of standardized instruction followed by hands-on practice with the Tactical CricKit and the H&H bougie-assisted Emergency Cricothyrotomy Kit. Participants acclimated to a dark environment for 30 minutes before performing SC on a mannequin with both devices using both R and RG light in a randomized order. Application time, success, participant preference, and participant confidence were analyzed. Results: There were similarly high levels of successful placement (>87.5%) in all four cohorts. Light choice did not appear to affect placement time with either of the two kits. On Likert-scale surveys, participants reported that RG decreased difficulty (p < .0001) and increased confidence (p < .0001) in performing the procedure. Conclusion: RG light increased confidence and decreased perceived difficulty when performing SC, though no differences in placement time or success were observed.
Keywords: light source; TCCC; red light; bougie-assisted; green light; white light; cricothyrotomy