A thoracoscopic cadaveric teaching model for needle decompression of a tension pneumothorax

Kristine T. Parra1, Jonathan R. Gower1, Gretchen M. Floan2,1, Megan V. Heflinger2, William B. Sisson1, Jonathan L. Halbach1,3, Romeo C. Ignacio3,2
1Department of General Surgery, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, USA
2Division of Pediatric Surgery, Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego, San Diego, USA
3Division of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, USA

Tóm tắt

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of a cadaveric teaching model for needle compression of pneumothorax simulated by thoracoscopy. A standardized didactic instruction was provided to medical personnel participants at a single institution tertiary medical center. A thoracoscope was inserted into cadavers and insufflated to 20 mm Hg for simulation of a tension pneumothorax. The study participants performed six needle decompressions (3 anterior, 3 lateral), which were all directly observed thoracoscopically. Demographic data and post-surveys were obtained. The primary endpoint was participant assessment of this teaching model for a simulated pneumothorax. Secondary endpoints were successful decompression of the pneumothorax, perceived success of each attempt, and injury to intrathoracic structures. Forty participants completed 240 attempted decompressions. Participants reported that 43% had taken ATLS, and 63% had performed a needle decompression on a simulated patient prior to this study. The rate of successful decompressions was 85.86%. Participants reported a perceived successful completion rate of 82%. 73.7% performed this safely, while 88.5% perceived that they performed it safely. 85.7% stated that they felt more confident and capable after the study. A simulated model is essential for adequate teaching. Our use of a thoracoscopic cadaveric model provides a realistic simulation of the pneumothorax used for training. Participants had similar rates of actual completion and perceived completion including higher rates of perceived safety. Further use of this model as a teaching tool will potentially improve the success of this life-saving procedure.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Eastridge BJ, Mabry RL, Seguin P, Cantrell J, Tops T, Uribe P, et al. Death on the battlefield (2001–2011): implications for the future of combat casualty care. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(6):S431–7.

McPherson JJ, Feigin DS, Bellamy RF. Prevalence of tension pneumothorax in fatally wounded combat casualties. J Trauma Injury Infect Critical Care. 2006;60(3):573–8.

Mabry RL, Holcomb JB, Baker AM, Cloonan CC, Uhorchak JM, Perkins DE, et al. United States Army Rangers in Somalia: an analysis of combat casualties on an Urban Battlefield. J Trauma Injury Infect Critical Care. 2000;49(3):515–29.

Eckstein M, Suyehara D. Needle thoracostomy in the prehospital setting. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998;2(2):132–5.

Chen J, Nadler R, Schwartz D, Tien H, Cap A, Glassberg E. Needle thoracostomy for tension pneumothorax: the Israeli defense forces experience. Can J Surg. 2015;58(3):S118–24.

Butler FK, Holcomb JB, Shackelford S, Montgomery HR, Anderson S, Cain JS, et al. Management of suspected tension pneumothorax in tactical combat casualty care: TCCC guidelines change 17–02. J Spec Oper Med. 2018;18(2):19–35.

Student Course Manual ATLS ® Advanced Trauma Life Support ®. 2018.

Ball CG, Wyrzykowski AD, Kirkpatrick AW, Dente CJ, Nicholas JM, Salomone JP, et al. Thoracic needle decompression for tension pneumothorax: clinical correlation with catheter length. Can J Surg. 2010;53(3):184–8.

Harcke HT, Mabry RL, Mazuchowski EL. Needle thoracentesis decompression: observations from postmortem computed tomography and autopsy. J Spec Oper Med. 2013;13(4):53–8.

Inaba K, Branco BC, Eckstein M, Shatz DV, Martin MJ, Green DJ, et al. Optimal positioning for emergent needle thoracostomy: a cadaver-based study. J Trauma Injury Infect Crit Care. 2011;71(5):1099–103.

Inaba K, Ives C, McClure K, Branco BC, Eckstein M, Shatz D, et al. Radiologic evaluation of alternative sites for needle decompression of tension pneumothorax. Arch Surg. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2012.751.

Leatherman ML, Held JM, Fluke LM, McEvoy CS, Inaba K, Grabo D, et al. Relative device stability of anterior versus axillary needle decompression for tension pneumothorax during casualty movement: preliminary analysis of a human cadaver model. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83(1):S136–41.

Inaba K, Karamanos E, Skiada D, Grabo D, Hammer P, Martin M, et al. Cadaveric comparison of the optimal site for needle decompression of tension pneumothorax by prehospital care providers. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79(6):1044–8.

Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L. The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning: simulation fidelity. Med Educ. 2012;46(7):636–47.

Tenorio LEM, Devine KJ, Lee J, Kowalewski TM, Barocas VH. Biomechanics of human parietal pleura in uniaxial extension. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;75:330–5.

Rubeis G, Steger F. Is live-tissue training ethically justified? An evidence-based ethical analysis. Altern Lab Anim. 2018;46(2):65–71.

Grabo D, Inaba K, Hammer P, Karamanos E, Skiada D, Martin M, et al. Optimal training for emergency needle thoracostomy placement by prehospital personnel: didactic teaching versus a cadaver-based training program. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77(3):S109–13.

Norris EA, McEvoy CS, Leatherman ML, Boboc MR, Fitch JL, Jensen SD, et al. Comparison of 10- versus 14-gauge angiocatheter for treatment of tension pneumothorax and tension-induced pulseless electrical activity with hemorrhagic shock: bigger is still better. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020;89(2S):S132–6.

Hart D, Rush R, Rule G, Clinton J, Beilman G, Anders S, et al. Training and assessing critical airway, breathing, and hemorrhage control procedures for trauma care: live tissue versus synthetic models. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25(2):148–67.