Practical assessment of different saw types for field amputation: A cadaver-based study

INTRODUCTION

Field amputation can be life-saving for entrapped patients requiring surgical extrication. Under these austere conditions, the procedure must be performed as rapidly as possible with limited equipment, often in a confined space, while minimizing provider risk. The aim of this study was to determine the ideal saw, and optimal approach, through bone or joint, for a field amputation.

METHODS

This was a prospective cadaver-based study. Four saws (Gigli, manual pruning, electric oscillating and electric reciprocating) were tested in human cadavers. Each saw was used to transect four separate long bones (humerus, ulna/radius, femur and tibia/fibula), previously exposed at a standardized location. The time required for each saw to cut through the bone, the number of attempts required to seat the saw when transecting the bone, slippage, quality of proximal bone cut and extent of body fluid splatter as well as the physical space required by each device during the amputation were recorded. Additionally, the most effective saw in the through bone assessment was compared to limb amputation using scalpel and scissors for a through joint amputation at the elbow, wrist, knee and ankle. Univariate analysis was used to compare the outcomes between the different saws.

RESULTS

The fastest saw for the through bone amputation was the reciprocating followed by oscillating (2.1 [1.4-3.7] seconds vs 3.0 [1.6-4.9] seconds). The manual pruning (58.8 [25-121] seconds) was the slowest (p = 0.007). Overall, the oscillating saw was superior or equivalent to the other devices in number of attempts (1), slippage (0), quality of bone cut (100% good) and physical space requirements (4500 cm³), and was the second fastest. In comparison, a through joint amputation (125.0 [50-147] seconds for scalpel and scissor; 125.5 [86-217] seconds for the oscillating saw) was significantly slower than through bone with the Gigli (p = 0.029), the oscillating (p = 0.029) and the reciprocal saw (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

The speed, precision, safety, space required, as well as the adjustable blade of the oscillating saw make it ideal for a field amputation. A Gigli saw is an excellent backup for when electrical tools cannot be used. Through bone amputation is faster than a through joint amputation.

Prehospital amputation: An experimental comparison of techniques

OBJECTIVE

Prehospital limb amputation is a rare but potentially life-saving intervention. When patients cannot be extricated due to limb entrapment or have hemodynamic compromise that precludes a prolonged extrication, they may benefit from an emergent prehospital amputation. The objective was to experimentally compare three prehospital amputation techniques on porcine legs.

METHODS

The three techniques studied were a scalpel with a Gigli saw, a hacksaw, and a reciprocating saw. For the first technique, a scalpel was used to make a circumferential incision in the soft tissue and a Gigli wire saw to cut through the bone. The second and third techniques only used a saw and did not require soft tissue incision with a scalpel. Three providers including an emergency medicine physician, a paramedic, and a medical student performed three amputations of each technique, resulting in twenty-seven total amputations. The primary outcome was amputation time. Secondary outcomes were rate of instrument malfunction and cleanliness of cut.

RESULTS

The primary outcome of amputation time was different between techniques. The Gigli saw technique took 32.86 ± 16.53 s (mean ± SD), hacksaw technique 6.28 ± 0.76 s, and reciprocating saw technique 2.84 ± 0.40 s. There were no differences in amputation time between participants for a given amputation technique. The Gigli saw technique had an instrument malfunction on 3/9 trials which was distinct from the other techniques. Differences in cleanliness of cut were nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital limb amputation with a hacksaw or reciprocating saw may result in faster completion of the time-sensitive procedure with fewer instrument malfunctions.

Emergency clamshell thoracotomy in blunt trauma resuscitation: Shelling the paradigm-2 cases and review of the literature

Clamshell thoracotomy (CST) may be indicated and life-saving in carefully selected cases of blunt trauma. As such, the current clinical stance of general contraindication of CST in blunt trauma should be reviewed and criteria developed to accommodate select cases, considering the diversity of injuries resulting from blunt trauma.