Cadaveric Prehospital Amputation: Which Reciprocating Saw Blade Offers the Most Efficient Amputation.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-11 DOI:10.1017/S1049023X23006283
Russell Baker, Patrick Popieluszko, Sara Mitchell, Sunny Baker, William Weiss
{"title":"Cadaveric Prehospital Amputation: Which Reciprocating Saw Blade Offers the Most Efficient Amputation.","authors":"Russell Baker,&nbsp;Patrick Popieluszko,&nbsp;Sara Mitchell,&nbsp;Sunny Baker,&nbsp;William Weiss","doi":"10.1017/S1049023X23006283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Field amputations are a low-frequency, high-risk procedure. Many prehospital personnel utilize the reciprocating saw. This study compares the efficiency, speed, and degree of tissue damage of different reciprocating saw blades found commercially.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Amputations were performed on two human cadavers at different levels of the upper and lower extremities. Four different blades were used, each with a different teeth-per-inch (TPI) design. The amputations were timed, blade temperature was recorded, subjective operator effort was obtained, amount of splatter was evaluated, and an orthopedic physician evaluated the extent of tissue damage and operating room repair difficulty.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The blade with fourteen TPI was superior in overall speed to complete the amputations at 1.07 seconds per one centimeter of tissue (SD = 0.49 seconds) and had the lowest fail rate (0/8 amputations). The three TPI, six TPI, and ten TPI blades all required a \"rescue\" technique and were slower. The blade with fourteen TPI caused the least amount of tissue damage and was deemed the easiest to repair. Secondary outcomes demonstrated the fourteen TPI blade had generated the least amount of heat and produced the least amount of splatter. All blades had a perceived effort of \"easy\" to complete the amputation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While all blades were able to achieve an amputation, the overall recommendation is use of a fourteen TPI blade. It did not require any rescue techniques, provided the most straightforward amputation to repair, had the least amount of biohazard splatter and temperature increase, and was the fastest blade overall.</p>","PeriodicalId":20400,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X23006283","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Field amputations are a low-frequency, high-risk procedure. Many prehospital personnel utilize the reciprocating saw. This study compares the efficiency, speed, and degree of tissue damage of different reciprocating saw blades found commercially.

Methods: Amputations were performed on two human cadavers at different levels of the upper and lower extremities. Four different blades were used, each with a different teeth-per-inch (TPI) design. The amputations were timed, blade temperature was recorded, subjective operator effort was obtained, amount of splatter was evaluated, and an orthopedic physician evaluated the extent of tissue damage and operating room repair difficulty.

Results: The blade with fourteen TPI was superior in overall speed to complete the amputations at 1.07 seconds per one centimeter of tissue (SD = 0.49 seconds) and had the lowest fail rate (0/8 amputations). The three TPI, six TPI, and ten TPI blades all required a "rescue" technique and were slower. The blade with fourteen TPI caused the least amount of tissue damage and was deemed the easiest to repair. Secondary outcomes demonstrated the fourteen TPI blade had generated the least amount of heat and produced the least amount of splatter. All blades had a perceived effort of "easy" to complete the amputation.

Conclusion: While all blades were able to achieve an amputation, the overall recommendation is use of a fourteen TPI blade. It did not require any rescue techniques, provided the most straightforward amputation to repair, had the least amount of biohazard splatter and temperature increase, and was the fastest blade overall.

骨科住院前截肢:哪种往复式锯片提供最有效的截肢。
目的:野外截肢是一种低频、高风险的手术。许多院前工作人员使用往复式锯。本研究比较了商业上发现的不同往复式锯片的效率、速度和组织损伤程度。方法:在两具人体尸体上,在不同水平的上肢和下肢进行截肢手术。使用了四种不同的刀片,每种刀片具有不同的每英寸齿数(TPI)设计。对截肢进行计时,记录刀片温度,获得操作员的主观努力,评估飞溅量,骨科医生评估组织损伤程度和手术室修复难度。结果:具有14个TPI的刀片在总速度上优于每厘米组织1.07秒(SD=0.49秒)完成截肢,并且失败率最低(0/8次截肢)。三个TPI、六个TPI和十个TPI刀片都需要“救援”技术,而且速度较慢。具有14个TPI的刀片造成的组织损伤最小,被认为是最容易修复的。次要结果表明,14个TPI刀片产生的热量最少,飞溅物最少。所有的刀片都有一种“容易”完成截肢的感觉。结论:虽然所有刀片都能实现截肢,但总体建议使用14个TPI刀片。它不需要任何救援技术,提供了最简单的截肢修复,生物危害飞溅和温度升高最少,是整体上最快的刀片。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
13.60%
发文量
279
期刊介绍: Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (PDM) is an official publication of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine. Currently in its 25th volume, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine is one of the leading scientific journals focusing on prehospital and disaster health. It is the only peer-reviewed international journal in its field, published bi-monthly, providing a readable, usable worldwide source of research and analysis. PDM is currently distributed in more than 55 countries. Its readership includes physicians, professors, EMTs and paramedics, nurses, emergency managers, disaster planners, hospital administrators, sociologists, and psychologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信