单手和双手成人胸部按压力分布的生物力学分析:一项随机交叉观察研究。

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ Pub Date : 2022-05-01 Epub Date: 2021-08-17 DOI:10.1136/emermed-2020-210363
Chia-Lung Kao, Jui-Yi Tsou, Ming-Yuan Hong, Chih-Jan Chang, Chih-Hsien Chi
{"title":"单手和双手成人胸部按压力分布的生物力学分析:一项随机交叉观察研究。","authors":"Chia-Lung Kao,&nbsp;Jui-Yi Tsou,&nbsp;Ming-Yuan Hong,&nbsp;Chih-Jan Chang,&nbsp;Chih-Hsien Chi","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2020-210363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The standard method of chest compression for adults is a two-handed procedure. One-handed external chest compression (ECC) is used in some situations such as during transport of patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but the quality of one-handed ECC is still not well known. The distribution of force is related to the quality of chest compression and may affect the risk of injury. This study aimed to determine the differences in the quality and potential safety concern between one-handed ECC and two- handed ECC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomised crossover study, participants recruited from National Cheng Kung University Hospital and the ambulance team from the fire bureau were asked to perform one-handed and two-handed ECC on the Resusci Anne manikin according to standard 2015 ECC guidelines. The MatScan Pressure Measurement system was used to investigate the compression pressure and force distribution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two-handed ECC had better results than one-handed ECC in terms of the median (IQR) depth (51.00 (41.50-54.75) mm vs 42.00 (27.00-49.00) mm, p=0.018), the proportion of depth accuracy (82.05% (13.95%-99.86%) vs 11.17% (0.00%-42.13%), p=0.028) and the proportion of incomplete recoil (0.23% (0.01%-0.44%) vs 2.42% (0.60%-4.21%), p=0.002). The maximum force (45.72 (36.10-80.84) kgf vs 35.64 (24.13-74.34) kgf, p<0.001) and ulnar-radial force difference (7.13 (-16.58 to 21.07) kgf vs 23.93 (11.19-38.74) kgf, p<0.001) showed statistically significant differences. The perceived fatigue of two-handed ECC versus one-handed ECC was 5.00 (3.00-6.00) vs 6.00 (5.00-8.00), p<0.001.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quality of one-handed ECC, based on depth and recoil, is worse than that of standard two-handed ECC. The pressure and force distribution of one-handed ECC result in greater ulnar pronation of the hand than that of two-handed ECC. One-handed ECC more easily causes operator fatigue. Acknowledging these findings and adjusting training for one-handed ECC would potentially improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport.</p>","PeriodicalId":410922,"journal":{"name":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","volume":" ","pages":"353-356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biomechanical analysis of force distribution in one-handed and two-handed adult chest compression: a randomised crossover observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Chia-Lung Kao,&nbsp;Jui-Yi Tsou,&nbsp;Ming-Yuan Hong,&nbsp;Chih-Jan Chang,&nbsp;Chih-Hsien Chi\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2020-210363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The standard method of chest compression for adults is a two-handed procedure. One-handed external chest compression (ECC) is used in some situations such as during transport of patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but the quality of one-handed ECC is still not well known. The distribution of force is related to the quality of chest compression and may affect the risk of injury. This study aimed to determine the differences in the quality and potential safety concern between one-handed ECC and two- handed ECC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomised crossover study, participants recruited from National Cheng Kung University Hospital and the ambulance team from the fire bureau were asked to perform one-handed and two-handed ECC on the Resusci Anne manikin according to standard 2015 ECC guidelines. The MatScan Pressure Measurement system was used to investigate the compression pressure and force distribution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two-handed ECC had better results than one-handed ECC in terms of the median (IQR) depth (51.00 (41.50-54.75) mm vs 42.00 (27.00-49.00) mm, p=0.018), the proportion of depth accuracy (82.05% (13.95%-99.86%) vs 11.17% (0.00%-42.13%), p=0.028) and the proportion of incomplete recoil (0.23% (0.01%-0.44%) vs 2.42% (0.60%-4.21%), p=0.002). The maximum force (45.72 (36.10-80.84) kgf vs 35.64 (24.13-74.34) kgf, p<0.001) and ulnar-radial force difference (7.13 (-16.58 to 21.07) kgf vs 23.93 (11.19-38.74) kgf, p<0.001) showed statistically significant differences. The perceived fatigue of two-handed ECC versus one-handed ECC was 5.00 (3.00-6.00) vs 6.00 (5.00-8.00), p<0.001.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quality of one-handed ECC, based on depth and recoil, is worse than that of standard two-handed ECC. The pressure and force distribution of one-handed ECC result in greater ulnar pronation of the hand than that of two-handed ECC. One-handed ECC more easily causes operator fatigue. Acknowledging these findings and adjusting training for one-handed ECC would potentially improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":410922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"353-356\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-210363\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/8/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-210363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

成人胸外按压的标准方法是双手按压。单手体外胸外按压(ECC)可用于院外心脏骤停患者的运输过程中,但单手体外胸外按压的质量尚不清楚。力的分布与胸部按压的质量有关,并可能影响受伤的风险。本研究旨在确定单手ECC和双手ECC在质量和潜在安全问题上的差异。方法:在这项随机交叉研究中,从国立成功大学医院和消防局的救护车团队招募的参与者被要求根据2015年标准ECC指南对复苏安妮假人进行单手和双手ECC。使用MatScan压力测量系统对压缩压力和压力分布进行了研究。结果:双手ECC在中位(IQR)深度(51.00 (41.50 ~ 54.75)mm vs 42.00 (27.00 ~ 49.00) mm, p=0.018)、深度正确率(82.05% (13.95% ~ 99.86%)vs 11.17% (0.00% ~ 42.13%), p=0.028)、不完全后坐力比例(0.23% (0.01% ~ 0.44%)vs 2.42% (0.60% ~ 4.21%), p=0.002)均优于单手ECC。最大作用力(45.72 (36.10-80.84)kgf vs 35.64 (24.13-74.34) kgf, p结论:单手ECC的深度和后坐力比标准双手ECC的质量差。单手ECC的压力和力分布导致手尺前旋大于双手ECC。单手ECC更容易造成操作人员疲劳。承认这些发现并调整单手心肺复苏训练可能会提高运输过程中心肺复苏的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biomechanical analysis of force distribution in one-handed and two-handed adult chest compression: a randomised crossover observational study.

Introduction: The standard method of chest compression for adults is a two-handed procedure. One-handed external chest compression (ECC) is used in some situations such as during transport of patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but the quality of one-handed ECC is still not well known. The distribution of force is related to the quality of chest compression and may affect the risk of injury. This study aimed to determine the differences in the quality and potential safety concern between one-handed ECC and two- handed ECC.

Methods: In this randomised crossover study, participants recruited from National Cheng Kung University Hospital and the ambulance team from the fire bureau were asked to perform one-handed and two-handed ECC on the Resusci Anne manikin according to standard 2015 ECC guidelines. The MatScan Pressure Measurement system was used to investigate the compression pressure and force distribution.

Results: Two-handed ECC had better results than one-handed ECC in terms of the median (IQR) depth (51.00 (41.50-54.75) mm vs 42.00 (27.00-49.00) mm, p=0.018), the proportion of depth accuracy (82.05% (13.95%-99.86%) vs 11.17% (0.00%-42.13%), p=0.028) and the proportion of incomplete recoil (0.23% (0.01%-0.44%) vs 2.42% (0.60%-4.21%), p=0.002). The maximum force (45.72 (36.10-80.84) kgf vs 35.64 (24.13-74.34) kgf, p<0.001) and ulnar-radial force difference (7.13 (-16.58 to 21.07) kgf vs 23.93 (11.19-38.74) kgf, p<0.001) showed statistically significant differences. The perceived fatigue of two-handed ECC versus one-handed ECC was 5.00 (3.00-6.00) vs 6.00 (5.00-8.00), p<0.001.

Conclusion: The quality of one-handed ECC, based on depth and recoil, is worse than that of standard two-handed ECC. The pressure and force distribution of one-handed ECC result in greater ulnar pronation of the hand than that of two-handed ECC. One-handed ECC more easily causes operator fatigue. Acknowledging these findings and adjusting training for one-handed ECC would potentially improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信