Cargando…

Comparison of left fourth and fifth intercostal space thoracotomy for open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ease of access to thoracic structures for performing open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OC‐CPR) differed between fourth and fifth intercostal space (ICS) left lateral thoracotomies in dogs, and to determine if “shingling” improved access for OC‐CPR manipulation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Warang, Anushri M., Mann, F. A., Middleton, John R., Wagner‐Mann, Colette, Branson, Keith
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9292625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33709525
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/vec.13059
_version_ 1784749415556186112
author Warang, Anushri M.
Mann, F. A.
Middleton, John R.
Wagner‐Mann, Colette
Branson, Keith
author_facet Warang, Anushri M.
Mann, F. A.
Middleton, John R.
Wagner‐Mann, Colette
Branson, Keith
author_sort Warang, Anushri M.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ease of access to thoracic structures for performing open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OC‐CPR) differed between fourth and fifth intercostal space (ICS) left lateral thoracotomies in dogs, and to determine if “shingling” improved access for OC‐CPR manipulations. DESIGN: Prospective single‐blinded study. SETTING: Laboratory. ANIMALS: Twelve mixed breed canine cadavers weighing approximately 20 kg. INTERVENTIONS: Left lateral thoracotomies were performed at the 4th ICS (n = 6) or 5th ICS (n = 6). Shingling at the 4th or 5th ICS, as applicable, was performed after initial data collection and outcomes were reassessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three evaluators blinded to the surgical approach scored the following parameters on a 0 to 10 scale (0 = easiest, 10 = most difficult): ease of access of the phrenicopericardial ligament, ease of pericardial incision, ease of appropriate hand position, ease of aortic access, ease of Rumel tourniquet application, and ease of proper placement of defibrillation paddles. Objective measurements (time to completion or number of attempts) were made for all but ease of pericardial incision and ease of appropriate hand position. Outcomes were reassessed after shingling. The 5th ICS was superior for ease of aortic access (P = 0.042), time to visualization of aorta (P = 0.009), and ease of application of a Rumel tourniquet (P = 0.019). When comparing scores pre‐ and post‐shingling, shingling improved time to visualization of the aorta (P < 0.001), time to placement of Rumel tourniquet (P < 0.001), ease of paddle placement (P = 0.017), and time to paddle placement (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Either 4th or 5th ICS thoracotomy may provide adequate access to intrathoracic structures pertinent to performing OC‐CPR in dogs weighing approximately 20 kg, but 5th ICS was preferred for most manipulations, and shingling improved access for most of the measured parameters.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9292625
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92926252022-07-20 Comparison of left fourth and fifth intercostal space thoracotomy for open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs Warang, Anushri M. Mann, F. A. Middleton, John R. Wagner‐Mann, Colette Branson, Keith J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) Original Studies OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ease of access to thoracic structures for performing open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OC‐CPR) differed between fourth and fifth intercostal space (ICS) left lateral thoracotomies in dogs, and to determine if “shingling” improved access for OC‐CPR manipulations. DESIGN: Prospective single‐blinded study. SETTING: Laboratory. ANIMALS: Twelve mixed breed canine cadavers weighing approximately 20 kg. INTERVENTIONS: Left lateral thoracotomies were performed at the 4th ICS (n = 6) or 5th ICS (n = 6). Shingling at the 4th or 5th ICS, as applicable, was performed after initial data collection and outcomes were reassessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three evaluators blinded to the surgical approach scored the following parameters on a 0 to 10 scale (0 = easiest, 10 = most difficult): ease of access of the phrenicopericardial ligament, ease of pericardial incision, ease of appropriate hand position, ease of aortic access, ease of Rumel tourniquet application, and ease of proper placement of defibrillation paddles. Objective measurements (time to completion or number of attempts) were made for all but ease of pericardial incision and ease of appropriate hand position. Outcomes were reassessed after shingling. The 5th ICS was superior for ease of aortic access (P = 0.042), time to visualization of aorta (P = 0.009), and ease of application of a Rumel tourniquet (P = 0.019). When comparing scores pre‐ and post‐shingling, shingling improved time to visualization of the aorta (P < 0.001), time to placement of Rumel tourniquet (P < 0.001), ease of paddle placement (P = 0.017), and time to paddle placement (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Either 4th or 5th ICS thoracotomy may provide adequate access to intrathoracic structures pertinent to performing OC‐CPR in dogs weighing approximately 20 kg, but 5th ICS was preferred for most manipulations, and shingling improved access for most of the measured parameters. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-12 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC9292625/ /pubmed/33709525 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/vec.13059 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Studies
Warang, Anushri M.
Mann, F. A.
Middleton, John R.
Wagner‐Mann, Colette
Branson, Keith
Comparison of left fourth and fifth intercostal space thoracotomy for open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs
title Comparison of left fourth and fifth intercostal space thoracotomy for open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs
title_full Comparison of left fourth and fifth intercostal space thoracotomy for open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs
title_fullStr Comparison of left fourth and fifth intercostal space thoracotomy for open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of left fourth and fifth intercostal space thoracotomy for open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs
title_short Comparison of left fourth and fifth intercostal space thoracotomy for open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs
title_sort comparison of left fourth and fifth intercostal space thoracotomy for open‐chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs
topic Original Studies
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9292625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33709525
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/vec.13059
work_keys_str_mv AT waranganushrim comparisonofleftfourthandfifthintercostalspacethoracotomyforopenchestcardiopulmonaryresuscitationindogs
AT mannfa comparisonofleftfourthandfifthintercostalspacethoracotomyforopenchestcardiopulmonaryresuscitationindogs
AT middletonjohnr comparisonofleftfourthandfifthintercostalspacethoracotomyforopenchestcardiopulmonaryresuscitationindogs
AT wagnermanncolette comparisonofleftfourthandfifthintercostalspacethoracotomyforopenchestcardiopulmonaryresuscitationindogs
AT bransonkeith comparisonofleftfourthandfifthintercostalspacethoracotomyforopenchestcardiopulmonaryresuscitationindogs