Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39959254›Full record

ArticleAEM education and training2025

Randomized crossover trial comparing two open surgical cricothyrotomy techniques.

Ezra Suria, James L Mallows, Mark D Salter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AEM education and training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ezra SuriaEmergency Department Nepean Hospital Penrith New South Wales Australia.
James L MallowsEmergency Department Nepean Hospital Penrith New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9355-3648
Mark D SalterEmergency Department Nepean Hospital Penrith New South Wales Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Emergency cricothyrotomy is a life-saving procedure that is performed in "can't intubate can't oxygenate" scenario. A recent study comparing an open surgical technique using a bougie and endotracheal tube (ETT) with a Seldinger technique using the Cook Melker catheter showed that the open technique was quicker but suggested that the open technique could be quicker if using the Melker catheter instead of a bougie and ETT. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical technique using bougie and ETT with an open technique using the Melker catheter. Methods: A randomized crossover trial was conducted involving emergency physicians (EPs) and trainees. Participants performed both techniques in succession on an airway model, with the technique performed first being randomized for each participant. The primary outcome was time to first insufflation of the artificial lung. Participants also indicated their comfort with each technique on a 5-point Likert scale and which technique they preferred. Results: Seventeen EPs and 19 trainees participated. The Melker catheter technique was performed quicker with a mean time of 29.2 s versus 44.3 s for the bougie/ETT technique (difference 15.1 s, 95% confidence interval 10.8-19.4 s). The Melker catheter was most preferred by participants (61% vs. 39%). There was no significant difference in the comfort ratings between each technique. Time to model lung insufflation was not affected by training level or time since last performed a cricothyrotomy, either real or simulated. Conclusions: The Melker catheter was quicker to perform and the most preferred by participants.

Indexed as

can't intubate can't ventilatecricothyrotomyfailed intubationsurgical airwaytreatment

Identifiers

PMID39959254
PMCPMC11828696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.