ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Development of novel thoracic retractor for resuscitative thoracotomy.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Resuscitative thoracotomy in traumatic cardiac arrest : Multisociety consensus recommendations for settings with a low prevalence of penetrating injuries.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResuscitative thoracotomy (RT) is a critical intervention for patients in traumatic cardiac arrest or hemorrhagic shock, where survival is highly dependent on the time required to perform the procedure. Despite its urgency, RT is still conducted using traditional thoracic retractors originally designed for scheduled surgeries, which pose challenges in emergency settings. To address these limitations, we developed a novel thoracic retractor optimized for RT and evaluated its performance compared to a conventional model.
methodsThe novel retractor was designed with an arrow-shaped hook for improved intercostal insertion and a continuously rotatable handle to enhance procedural efficiency. A comparative study using excised porcine thoraxes was conducted to assess its performance. Six cm incisions were made in the intercostal spaces bilaterally before retractor insertion. Evaluators inserted the device, performed three handle rotations, and repeated the procedure using the other retractor on the contralateral side. The primary outcome was the time required for three rotations, while secondary outcomes included ease of insertion, ease of rotation, and hook stability, rated on a 6-point scale by evaluators.
resultsTen surgeons (n = 10) performed thoracotomy using both the novel and conventional retractors. Comparison of the time required for three handle rotations between the novel and conventional retractors demonstrated a statistically significant reduction with the novel retractor. The median time to complete three rotations was 16.0 [11.7-19.1] seconds with the novel retractor, compared to 7.0 [5.3-8.5] seconds with the conventional model (P < 0.01). The ease of insertion was rated significantly higher with the novel retractor compared to the conventional model (6.0 [5.5-6.0] vs. 2.5 [2.0-3.0], P < 0.01). The ease of rotation was also rated significantly higher with the novel retractor than with the conventional model (5.5 [5.0-6.0] vs. 2.5 [1.0-3.5], P < 0.01). In the evaluation of the hook stability, no significant difference was observed between the novel and conventional retractors (P = 1.0).
conclusionsThe novel thoracic retractor enables faster and easier thoracotomy compared to conventional model. Given the strong association between time and RT prognosis, this device is well-suited for RT procedures requiring rapid execution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.