Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
Development of novel thoracic retractor for resuscitative thoracotomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Urabe Shoichiro, Shimazaki Junya, Izutani Tomohisa, Hata Tsuyoshi, Uemura Mamoru, Eguchi Hidetoshi, Doki Yuichiro, Nakajima Kiyokazu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) is a critical intervention for patients in traumatic cardiac arrest or hemorrhagic shock, where survival is highly dependent on the time required to perform the procedure. Despite its urgency, RT is still conducted using traditional thoracic retractors originally designed for scheduled surgeries, which pose challenges in emergency settings. To address these limitations, we developed a novel thoracic retractor optimized for RT and evaluated its performance compared to a conventional model.
METHODS: The novel retractor was designed with an arrow-shaped hook for improved intercostal insertion and a continuously rotatable handle to enhance procedural efficiency. A comparative study using excised porcine thoraxes was conducted to assess its performance. Six cm incisions were made in the intercostal spaces bilaterally before retractor insertion. Evaluators inserted the device, performed three handle rotations, and repeated the procedure using the other retractor on the contralateral side. The primary outcome was the time required for three rotations, while secondary outcomes included ease of insertion, ease of rotation, and hook stability, rated on a 6-point scale by evaluators.
RESULTS: Ten surgeons (n = 10) performed thoracotomy using both the novel and conventional retractors. Comparison of the time required for three handle rotations between the novel and conventional retractors demonstrated a statistically significant reduction with the novel retractor. The median time to complete three rotations was 16.0 [11.7-19.1] seconds with the novel retractor, compared to 7.0 [5.3-8.5] seconds with the conventional model (P < 0.01). The ease of insertion was rated significantly higher with the novel retractor compared to the conventional model (6.0 [5.5-6.0] vs. 2.5 [2.0-3.0], P < 0.01). The ease of rotation was also rated significantly higher with the novel retractor than with the conventional model (5.5 [5.0-6.0] vs. 2.5 [1.0-3.5], P < 0.01). In the evaluation of the hook stability, no significant difference was observed between the novel and conventional retractors (P = 1.0).
CONCLUSIONS: The novel thoracic retractor enables faster and easier thoracotomy compared to conventional model. Given the strong association between time and RT prognosis, this device is well-suited for RT procedures requiring rapid execution.
METHODS: The novel retractor was designed with an arrow-shaped hook for improved intercostal insertion and a continuously rotatable handle to enhance procedural efficiency. A comparative study using excised porcine thoraxes was conducted to assess its performance. Six cm incisions were made in the intercostal spaces bilaterally before retractor insertion. Evaluators inserted the device, performed three handle rotations, and repeated the procedure using the other retractor on the contralateral side. The primary outcome was the time required for three rotations, while secondary outcomes included ease of insertion, ease of rotation, and hook stability, rated on a 6-point scale by evaluators.
RESULTS: Ten surgeons (n = 10) performed thoracotomy using both the novel and conventional retractors. Comparison of the time required for three handle rotations between the novel and conventional retractors demonstrated a statistically significant reduction with the novel retractor. The median time to complete three rotations was 16.0 [11.7-19.1] seconds with the novel retractor, compared to 7.0 [5.3-8.5] seconds with the conventional model (P < 0.01). The ease of insertion was rated significantly higher with the novel retractor compared to the conventional model (6.0 [5.5-6.0] vs. 2.5 [2.0-3.0], P < 0.01). The ease of rotation was also rated significantly higher with the novel retractor than with the conventional model (5.5 [5.0-6.0] vs. 2.5 [1.0-3.5], P < 0.01). In the evaluation of the hook stability, no significant difference was observed between the novel and conventional retractors (P = 1.0).
CONCLUSIONS: The novel thoracic retractor enables faster and easier thoracotomy compared to conventional model. Given the strong association between time and RT prognosis, this device is well-suited for RT procedures requiring rapid execution.