Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (20)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meek, T.
Right arrow Articles by Duggan, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meek, T.
Right arrow Articles by Duggan, J. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 80, Issue 5 672-674, Copyright © 1998 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Cricoid pressure: can protective force be sustained?

T. Meek, A. Vincent and J. E. Duggan
Northern Schools of Anaesthesia, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 4LP; Department of Anaesthesia, Wansbeck General Hospital, Ashington, Northumberland NE63 9JJ

We studied six operating department assistants performing simulated cricoid pressure on a model of the larynx with the arm either flexed to 90 degrees (flexed position) or fully extended with the elbow locked (extended position). Subjects were asked to maintain forces of 20, 30 and 40 Newtons (N) for a target time of 20 min. Subjects rated pain during each assessment on a four-point verbal rating scale (VRS): 1 = uncomfortable; 2 = hurting; 3 = hurting a lot; and 4 = agony. Times to onset of pain were short and mean times to VRS 3 at each force studied were: 40 N, flexed position 2.3 min, extended position 5.4 min; 30 N, flexed position 4.0 min, extended position 7.5 min; and 20 N, flexed position 9.6 min, extended position 12.5 min. None of our subjects was able to sustain 40 N for the target time. Mean times to release at 40 N were: flexed position 3.7 min, extended position 7.6 min. Only one subject was able to sustain 30 N and then only using the extended arm. Mean times to release at 30 N were: flexed position 6.4 min, extended position (five subjects) 10.8 min. Two subjects with the arm flexed and five with the arm extended achieved the target time at 20 N. Mean times to release at 20 N were: flexed position (four subjects) 13.2 min, extended position (one subject) 14.6 min. Use of the extended arm consistently prolonged times to pain and fatigue. These findings are relevant to the management of cricoid pressure during failed intubation.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
A. Ng and G. Smith
Gastroesophageal Reflux and Aspiration of Gastric Contents in Anesthetic Practice
Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2001; 93(2): 494 - 513.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.