Title |
Bystander cricothyrotomy with ballpoint pen: a fresh cadaveric feasibility study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Emergency Medicine Journal, April 2016
|
DOI | 10.1136/emermed-2015-205659 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ulrich Kisser, Christian Braun, Astrid Huber, Klaus Stelter |
Abstract |
In motion pictures and anecdotal reports, ballpoint pens have been used for life-saving cricothyroidotomies. The objective of this study was to examine the widespread belief that ballpoint pens can perforate the skin and cricothyroid ligament and could be used as substitute tracheostomy sets in an emergency setting. Three different ballpoint pens were examined regarding their inner diameter, their demountability to form a cannula and their airflow properties. Ten medical laypersons were asked to try to puncture the trachea through the skin and the cricothyroid ligament in 10 fresh cadavers just using the ballpoint pens. Two of three pens had inner diameters of >3 mm and were both suitable as cannulas in a tracheotomy. All participants could perforate the skin with both ballpoint pens. However, almost no one could penetrate through the cricothyroid ligament or the ventral wall of the trachea, except for one participant. He performed the tracheostomy after three attempts in >5 min with a lot of patience and force. A cricothyroidotomy just with a ballpoint pen is virtually impossible. First, the airflow resistance in commercially available ballpoint pens is too high to produce effective ventilation. Second, the cricothyroid ligament is too strong to be penetrated by ballpoint pens. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 29 | 21% |
United States | 17 | 12% |
Norway | 8 | 6% |
Canada | 6 | 4% |
Australia | 3 | 2% |
New Zealand | 3 | 2% |
Japan | 2 | 1% |
Brazil | 2 | 1% |
Ireland | 2 | 1% |
Other | 15 | 11% |
Unknown | 52 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 96 | 69% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 28 | 20% |
Scientists | 13 | 9% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
Other | 3 | 11% |
Researcher | 3 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
Other | 5 | 19% |
Unknown | 5 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 48% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
Chemical Engineering | 1 | 4% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 7 | 26% |