对用于军事作战环境的市售声门上气道装置进行军用标准测试。

Carlos Bedolla, Danielius Zilevicius, Grant Copeland, Marisa Guerra, Sophia Salazar, Michael D April, Brit Long, Jason F Naylor, Robert A De Lorenzo, Steven G Schauer, R Lyle Hood
{"title":"对用于军事作战环境的市售声门上气道装置进行军用标准测试。","authors":"Carlos Bedolla, Danielius Zilevicius, Grant Copeland, Marisa Guerra, Sophia Salazar, Michael D April, Brit Long, Jason F Naylor, Robert A De Lorenzo, Steven G Schauer, R Lyle Hood","doi":"10.55460/B4KU-GB0V","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Airway obstruction is the second leading cause of death on the battlefield. The harsh conditions of the military combat setting require that devices be able to withstand extreme circumstances. Military standards (MIL-STD) testing is necessary before devices are fielded. We sought to determine the ability of supraglottic airway (SGA) devices to withstand MIL-STD testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We tested 10 SGA models according to nine MIL-STD-810H test methods. We selected these tests by polling five military and civilian emergency-medicine subject matter experts (SMEs), who weighed the relevance of each test. We performed tests on three devices for each model, with operational and visual examinations, to assign a score (1 to 10) for each device after each test. We calculated the final score of each SGA model by averaging the score of each device and multiplying that by the weight for each test, for a possible final score of 2.6 to 26.3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scores for the SGA models were LMA Classic Airway, 25.9; AuraGain Disposable Laryngeal Mask, 25.5; i-gel Supraglottic Airway, 25.2; Solus Laryngeal Mask Airway, 24.4; LMA Fastrach Airway, 24.4; AuraStraight Disposable Laryngeal Mask, 24.1; King LTS-D Disposable Laryngeal Tube, 22.1; LMA Supreme Airway, 21.0; air-Q Disposable Intubating Laryngeal Airway, 20.1; and Baska Mask Supraglottic Airway, 18.1. The limited (one to three) samples available for testing provide adequate preliminary information but restrict the range of failures that could be discovered.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lower scoring SGA models may not be optimal for military field use. Models scoring sufficiently close to the top performers (LMA Classic, AuraGain, i-gel, Solus, LMA Fastrach, AuraStraight) may be viable for use in the military setting. The findings of our testing should help guide device procurement appropriate for different battlefield conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":53630,"journal":{"name":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Military Standard Testing of Commercially Available Supraglottic Airway Devices for Use in a Military Combat Setting.\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Bedolla, Danielius Zilevicius, Grant Copeland, Marisa Guerra, Sophia Salazar, Michael D April, Brit Long, Jason F Naylor, Robert A De Lorenzo, Steven G Schauer, R Lyle Hood\",\"doi\":\"10.55460/B4KU-GB0V\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Airway obstruction is the second leading cause of death on the battlefield. The harsh conditions of the military combat setting require that devices be able to withstand extreme circumstances. Military standards (MIL-STD) testing is necessary before devices are fielded. We sought to determine the ability of supraglottic airway (SGA) devices to withstand MIL-STD testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We tested 10 SGA models according to nine MIL-STD-810H test methods. We selected these tests by polling five military and civilian emergency-medicine subject matter experts (SMEs), who weighed the relevance of each test. We performed tests on three devices for each model, with operational and visual examinations, to assign a score (1 to 10) for each device after each test. We calculated the final score of each SGA model by averaging the score of each device and multiplying that by the weight for each test, for a possible final score of 2.6 to 26.3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scores for the SGA models were LMA Classic Airway, 25.9; AuraGain Disposable Laryngeal Mask, 25.5; i-gel Supraglottic Airway, 25.2; Solus Laryngeal Mask Airway, 24.4; LMA Fastrach Airway, 24.4; AuraStraight Disposable Laryngeal Mask, 24.1; King LTS-D Disposable Laryngeal Tube, 22.1; LMA Supreme Airway, 21.0; air-Q Disposable Intubating Laryngeal Airway, 20.1; and Baska Mask Supraglottic Airway, 18.1. The limited (one to three) samples available for testing provide adequate preliminary information but restrict the range of failures that could be discovered.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lower scoring SGA models may not be optimal for military field use. Models scoring sufficiently close to the top performers (LMA Classic, AuraGain, i-gel, Solus, LMA Fastrach, AuraStraight) may be viable for use in the military setting. The findings of our testing should help guide device procurement appropriate for different battlefield conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55460/B4KU-GB0V\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55460/B4KU-GB0V","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介气道阻塞是战场上第二大死亡原因。军事作战环境的恶劣条件要求设备能够承受极端环境。在设备投入使用之前,必须进行军用标准 (MIL-STD) 测试。我们试图确定声门上气道 (SGA) 设备经受 MIL-STD 测试的能力:我们根据九种 MIL-STD-810H 测试方法测试了 10 种 SGA 型号。我们通过向五位军方和民间急救医学专家 (SME) 征询意见来选择这些测试方法,他们对每种测试方法的相关性进行了权衡。我们对每种型号的三台设备进行了测试,并进行了操作和目测检查,在每次测试后为每台设备打分(1 到 10 分)。我们计算了每个 SGA 型号的最终得分,方法是将每个设备的得分取平均值,再乘以每个测试的权重,最终得分可能为 2.6 到 26.3:SGA 型号的得分分别为:LMA Classic 气道,25.9 分;AuraGain 一次性喉罩,25.5 分;i-gel 声门上气道,25.2 分;Solus 喉罩气道,24.4 分;LMA Fastrach 气道,24.4 分;AuraStraight 一次性喉罩气道,25.2 分;Solus 喉罩气道,24.4 分。4;AuraStraight 一次性喉罩,24.1;King LTS-D 一次性喉管,22.1;LMA Supreme 气道,21.0;air-Q 一次性喉插管气道,20.1;以及 Baska 喉罩声门上气道,18.1。可用于测试的样本有限(1 至 3 个),这提供了充分的初步信息,但限制了可能发现的故障范围:结论:得分较低的 SGA 型号可能不是军事实战使用的最佳选择。得分足够接近最高分的型号(LMA Classic、AuraGain、i-gel、Solus、LMA Fastrach、AuraStraight)可能适合在军事环境中使用。我们的测试结果应有助于指导适合不同战场条件的设备采购。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Military Standard Testing of Commercially Available Supraglottic Airway Devices for Use in a Military Combat Setting.

Introduction: Airway obstruction is the second leading cause of death on the battlefield. The harsh conditions of the military combat setting require that devices be able to withstand extreme circumstances. Military standards (MIL-STD) testing is necessary before devices are fielded. We sought to determine the ability of supraglottic airway (SGA) devices to withstand MIL-STD testing.

Methods: We tested 10 SGA models according to nine MIL-STD-810H test methods. We selected these tests by polling five military and civilian emergency-medicine subject matter experts (SMEs), who weighed the relevance of each test. We performed tests on three devices for each model, with operational and visual examinations, to assign a score (1 to 10) for each device after each test. We calculated the final score of each SGA model by averaging the score of each device and multiplying that by the weight for each test, for a possible final score of 2.6 to 26.3.

Results: The scores for the SGA models were LMA Classic Airway, 25.9; AuraGain Disposable Laryngeal Mask, 25.5; i-gel Supraglottic Airway, 25.2; Solus Laryngeal Mask Airway, 24.4; LMA Fastrach Airway, 24.4; AuraStraight Disposable Laryngeal Mask, 24.1; King LTS-D Disposable Laryngeal Tube, 22.1; LMA Supreme Airway, 21.0; air-Q Disposable Intubating Laryngeal Airway, 20.1; and Baska Mask Supraglottic Airway, 18.1. The limited (one to three) samples available for testing provide adequate preliminary information but restrict the range of failures that could be discovered.

Conclusions: Lower scoring SGA models may not be optimal for military field use. Models scoring sufficiently close to the top performers (LMA Classic, AuraGain, i-gel, Solus, LMA Fastrach, AuraStraight) may be viable for use in the military setting. The findings of our testing should help guide device procurement appropriate for different battlefield conditions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊最新文献
Limitations of Triage in Military Mass Casualty Response: A Case Series. REBOA Use in a Medicalized Prehospital Setting Proposal for a First Protocol Based on the Delphi Method. Military Medical Student Specialty Preferences During the DHA Transition: A Retrospective Analysis. The Effect of Radiological Assessment of Volunteers for French Paratrooper Training A Five-Year Retrospective Study. Vascular Repair in Wartime Casualties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1