Percutaneous vs surgical emergency cricothyroidotomy: An experimental randomized crossover study on an animal-larynx model.

BACKGROUND

Airway management is a paramount clinical skill for the anaesthesiologist. The Emergency Cricothyroidotomy (EC) constitutes the final step in difficult airway algorithms securing a patent airway via a front-of-neck access. The main distinction among available techniques is whether the procedure is surgical and scalpel-based or percutaneous and needle-based.

METHODS

In an experimental randomized crossover trial, using an animal larynx model, we compared two EC techniques; the Rapid Four Step Technique and the Melker Emergency Cricothyrotomy Kit®. We assessed time expenditure and success rates among 20 anaesthesiologists and related this to previous training, seniority and clinical experience with EC.

RESULTS

All participants achieved successful airway access with both methods. Average time to successful airway access for scalpel-based EC was 54 (±31) seconds and for percutaneous EC 89 (±38) seconds, with 35 (95% CI: 14-57) seconds time difference, P = .003. Doctors with recent (<12 months) EC training performed better compared to the non-training group (37 vs 61 seconds, P = .03 for scalpel-based EC, and 65 vs 99 seconds, P = .02 for percutaneous EC). We found no differences according to clinical seniority or previous real-life EC experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that anaesthesiologists achieved successful airway access on an animal experimental model with both EC methods within a reasonable time frame, but the scalpel-based EC is performed more promptly. Recent EC training affected the time expenditure positively, while seniority and clinical EC experience did not. EC procedures should be regularly trained for.