Original Study: Comparison of three intraosseous access techniques in cats

Authors

  • Alex Bukoski PhD, DVM,

    1. Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Matthew Winter DVM, DACVR,

    1. Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Carsten Bandt DVM, DACVECC,

    1. Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mary Wilson RT(R), CV, MR, CT,

    1. Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Andre Shih DVM, DACVA

    1. Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610
    Search for more papers by this author

  • This work was presented in abstract form at the 15th International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Symposium (2009).

  • Sources of support: Funded in part by the University of Florida, College of Veterinary Medicine, 2007 Consolidated Resident Research Grant.

  • The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to
Dr. Andre Shih, Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, PO Box 100136, 2015 SW 16th Ave, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA. Email: shiha@vetmed.ufl.edu

Abstract

Objective – To compare the placement feasibility and amount of bone trauma induced by 3 intraosseous (IO) access techniques in cats: an automatic impact penetration device (A), an automatic rotary insertion device (B), and a manual IO needle (C).

Design – Prospective ex vivo study.

Setting – University.

Animals – Eighteen adult mixed breed feline cadavers.

Interventions – Cadavers provided 72 total IO insertion locations divided equally between the right and left humerus and tibia. The 3 IO techniques were randomly allocated to these locations. Time to successful insertion, ease of insertion, and success rate were recorded. Each insertion site was analyzed for the number of bone fragments and defect diameter by computed tomography.

Measurements and Main Results – Device B had lower time of insertion (P=0.01) compared with devices A and C. Device B had better ease of insertion scores (P<0.01) compared with devices A and C. No differences were detected between insertion sites (tibia versus humerus). No differences in the number of bone fragments, defect diameter, or success rate were detected among devices (P=0.06, 0.31, and 0.14, respectively).

Conclusions – All 3 IO access methods evaluated yield acceptable results. Device B is significantly faster and easier to place in cat cadavers when compared with other methods.

Ancillary