Feasibility of Obtaining Intraosseous and Intravenous Access Using Night Vision Goggle Focusing Adaptors.
| Autor: | Iteen A, Koch EJ, Wojahn A, Gutierrez R, Hildreth A, Rudinsky S, Deaton TG, Zarow GJ |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals [J Spec Oper Med] 2022 Spring; Vol. 22 (1), pp. 56-63. |
| DOI: | 10.55460/WE0Q-YOCA |
| Abstrakt: | Background: The optimal tactical lighting for performing medical procedures under low-light conditions is unclear. Methods: United States Navy medical personnel (N = 23) performed intravenous (IV) and intraosseous (IO) procedures on mannequins using a tactical headlamp, night vision goggles (NVGs), and night vision goggles with focusing adaptors (NVG+A) utilizing a randomized within-subjects design. Procedure success, time to completion, and user preferences were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and nonparametric statistics at p < .05. Results: IV success rates were significantly greater for the headlamp (74%) than for NVG (35%; p < .03) and somewhat greater than for NVG+A (52%; p = .18). IO success rates were high under each lighting condition (96% to 100%). Time to completion was significantly faster using headlamp (IV, 106 ± 28 s; IO, 47 ± 11 s) than NVG (IV, 168 ± 80 s; IO, 56 ± 17 s) or NVG-A (IV, 157 ± 52 s; IO, 59 ± 27 s; each p < .01). Posttesting confidence on a 1-to-5 scale was somewhat higher for NVG+A (IV, 2.9 ± 0.2; IO, 4.2 ± 0.2) than for NVG (IV, 2.6 ± 0.2; IO, 4.0 ± 0.2). Participants cited concerns with NVG+A depth perception and with adjusting the adaptors, and that the adaptors were not integrated into the NVG. Conclusion: While this mannequin study was limited by laboratory conditions and by the lack of practice opportunities, we found some small advantages of focusing adaptors over NVG alone but not over headlamp for IV and IO access in low-light conditions. (2022.) |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|