Clinical Science  |   March 2000
Comparison of Conventional Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Emergency Cricothyrotomy Performed by Inexperienced Clinicians
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Philip Eisenburger, M.D.
  • Klaus Laczika, M.D.
  • Michaela List, M.D.
  • Astrid Wilfing, M.D.
  • Heidrun Losert, M.D.
  • Roland Hofbauer, M.D.
  • Heinz Burgmann, M.D.
  • Hans Bankl, M.D.
  • Branko Pikula, M.D.
  • Jonathan L. Benumof, M.D.
  • Michael Frass, M.D.
  • *Staff Internist, University Clinic of Emergency Medicine and Department of Internal Medicine I. †Staff Internist, Department of Internal Medicine I. ‡Staff Anesthesiologist, Department of Anesthesiology, Municipal Hospital Lainz, Vienna, Austria. §Professor of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine I. ∥Professor of Pathology, Department of Clinical Pathology. #Professor of Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology, University of California–San Diego, San Diego, California.
Article Information
Clinical Science
Clinical Science   |   March 2000
Comparison of Conventional Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Emergency Cricothyrotomy Performed by Inexperienced Clinicians
Anesthesiology 3 2000, Vol.92, 687-690. doi:
Anesthesiology 3 2000, Vol.92, 687-690. doi:
THE final cannot-ventilate cannot-intubate option in all airway-management algorithms, whether they concern prehospital, emergency room, intensive care unit (ICU), or operating room (OR) patients, is insertion of a endotracheal tube via  a cricothyrotomy. 1 There are currently two main methods of endotracheal tube insertion through a cricothyrotomy, namely the conventional surgical and blind Seldinger techniques. Unfortunately, because the procedure happens rarely, many caregivers (e.g.  , nonsurgeon intensivists, anesthesiologists) have little experience with either method in real cannot-ventilate cannot-intubate situations in life-threatened patients. Consequently, it would be extremely important to know the fastest and most reliable method in the hands of first-time performers. The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy (speed and success rate) of standard surgical versus  Seldinger technique cricothyrotomy performed by first-time inexperienced ICU physicians using both methods in cadavers.
Materials and Methods
The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Vienna.
Study Design
We compared two methods of cricothyrotomy in adult human cadavers:
  • Group 1  (n = 20): Standard surgical cricothyrotomy using a no. 11 scalpel blade, a retractor, a tracheal dilator (Carl Reiner, Vienna, Austria), and a cuffed tracheal cannula with internal diameter 5.0 mm (Mallinckrodt, Argyle, NY).
  • Group 2  (n = 20): Seldinger technique for percutaneous dilational cricothyrotomy using a kit (Arndt Emergency Cricothyrotomy Catheter Set, Cook Critical Care, Bloomington, IN).
In a 60-min training session, the physician participants were first shown, using slides, the anatomic details of the region of interest, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and European Resuscitation Council Difficult Airway Algorithms, 2,3 and the tools of both methods (30 min). The component parts of both methods were then shown for 15 min each. Explanations were given according to instructions found in the literature 4,5 (group 1) and the instruction manual of the Seldinger kit (group 2). Afterward, there was time for questions and discussion. No video was shown of the procedure.
Group 1.
After identification of the anatomic landmarks, the larynx was held in place by holding the upper pole of the thyroid cartilage firmly with the thumb and middle finger of one hand. The cricothyroid membrane (CTM) was then palpated with the index finger. A 3.0- to 4.0-cm midline vertical skin incision was made in the cadavers, cutting skin, fat, and muscle layers. Some physicians used the retractor or their fingers to keep the incision open. Then a 1.5- to 2.0-cm transverse incision was made at the inferior third of the CTM. The resulting hole was enlarged with the dilator, and the cuffed tracheal cannula was inserted. After inflation of the cuff and the first ventilation from a breathing bag, placement was confirmed by using the esophageal detection method with either an aspiration syringe (Ambu TubeChek Syringe, Ambu, Linthicum, MD) or the self-inflating bulb (Ambu TubeChek-B, Ambu). This evaluation completed the procedure from the viewpoint of the participant.
Group 2.
After location of the CTM, the trachea was punctured with an 18- gauge thin wall needle, and air was aspirated into a syringe filled with water. The 0.035-in guide wire in the kit was inserted via  the needle into the trachea. The needle was removed over the wire, the puncture site enlarged by a stab with a no. 15 scalpel blade (leading to a vertical incision about 4 mm in length), and the uncuffed tube with the dilator inserted into the trachea over the wire. The dilator and the wire were removed from the tube, ventilations were performed, and placement was evaluated as in group 1.
Each attempt was watched by one of us (P.E., K.L.), and the participants were put under stress by constantly reminding them that only 2 min were allowed, because 1 min had already passed trying or considering another method. The participants were allowed only one attempt per procedure and cadaver.
The participants were ICU physicians (residents and fellows) who had been trained in critical care medicine for 1 to 5 yr. Each participant had performed numerous conventional endotracheal intubations with the aid of a laryngoscope or fiberscope, but no participant had performed a previous cricothyrotomy, with either the surgical or Seldinger technique. All participants had had at least some minimal training (> 3 months) in surgery, making them familiar with a scalpel, but not in neck surgery.
The study was performed in 40 consecutive unembalmed adult human cadavers who had died 4–24 h before the procedure. Participants had no influence on the choice of cadavers. The order of the two methods was randomized. Tracheal tubes in situ  were removed before the procedure. The cadaver was lying flat on the dissecting table with a roll under the neck or the shoulder. Inclusion criteria consisted of adult male and female human cadavers (> 19 yr of age) in the morgue. Exclusion criteria consisted of previous neck surgery or disease.
Evaluated Parameters
Age, sex, height, weight, and neck circumference of the corpses were recorded. We measured three time intervals, using a stopwatch: from the start of the procedure to location of the CTM, tracheal puncture or penetration with scalpel, and the first ventilation with a breathing bag. Subjective assessment of the difficulty of the anatomic situation (obesity, short neck, bullneck) and the ease of use of each method was given by the participants on a visual analogue scale from 1 (easiest) to 5 (worst). The pathologist dissected the neck and examined the position of the cannula, assessing the correctness of placement in the trachea and any potential injury inflicted.
For statistical analysis, the Student t  test was used. Statistical calculations were performed with the help of the software package SAS (version 5.0; Statistical Analysis System, Cary, NC). P  < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results are reported as mean values ± SD.
Age, height, weight, and neck circumference of the cadavers were not significantly different between the two groups (table 1). The measured time intervals are listed in table 2. No significant differences could be found with respect to the three time intervals recorded. Subjective assessments of the ease of the methods and the anatomic situation were equal between groups (table 2).
Table 1. Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Cricothyrotomy (N = 40)
Image not available
Table 1. Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Cricothyrotomy (N = 40)
Table 2. Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Cricothyrotomy (N = 40)
Image not available
Table 2. Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Cricothyrotomy (N = 40)
Tracheal placement of the cannula was achieved in 70% (n = 14) in group 1, and in 60% (n = 12) in group 2. This difference was not statistically significant. Failures in group 1 resulted from paratracheal (n = 1), esophageal (n = 1), or subcutaneous (n = 2) misplacement of the cannula. One failure resulted from unsuccessful attempts to locate the CTM, another from abortion of the procedure based on assumption of esophageal position although the tube was in correct tracheal position. Failures in group 2 resulted from kinking of the guide wire in five cases and anterior (n = 1), lateral (n = 1), or esophageal (n = 1) misplacement. In the cases of guide-wire kinking, the soft, flexible tip of the wire got entangled in the T joint of the kit, or the “check-flow” valve. The correct or incorrect placement of the needle had no influence on the entanglement.
The gender distribution among the failures was two males and four females in group 1 and five males and three females in group 2 (P  value not significant).
Incidence of injuries was equal between groups (15% in group 1, 10% in group 2, P  not significant). Most injuries were esophageal perforations (n = 2) and punctures of the thyroid vessels (n = 3).
Difficulty in establishing a secure airway is not a rare event. In the American Society of Anesthesiologist’s Closed Claims Study, 34% of the claims were related to airway management. 6 The correct sequence of procedures to be performed if confronted with airway-management difficulties has been standardized, 2,3 and training in the performance of its components is of considerable priority for anyone working in emergency room, ICU, or operating room facilities.
We found that cricothyrotomy could be successfully established by ICU physicians performing the procedures for the first time in about two thirds of cadavers using both methods. Failures using the surgical method resulted mainly from misplacements; technical problems were encountered using the Seldinger technique. Although the red plastic sheath has to be held in a retracted position during the air-aspiration maneuver, the sheath has to be pushed forward for introduction of the guide wire. If the sheath is not pushed forward, the guide wire kinks during insertion and may not be used for another insertion attempt. This problem was responsible for five aborted attempts in group 2 (out of eight failures). We therefore recommend special emphasis on this aspect in teaching the Seldinger kit.
Lack of experience has been acknowledged as the main source of cricothyrotomy failure, 4,7 because practice opportunities of any kind are scarce. This was the reason why each participant was allowed only one attempt in this study, to simulate the real world and avoid a study-induced learning curve. As an additional observation, we noticed that many of the physicians performed far better with continued practice. Therefore, the rescuer should use the method he or she is most accustomed to.
It has to be stated that cadavers do not reflect the real-life situation. Lung edema in cadavers might influence the aspiration of air with the Seldinger kit, leading to false negative assessment of the position the needle. Surgical incision in the living patient undergoing cricothyrotomy may lead to surgical bleeding, thereby impairing visualization of the anatomic structures. In living trauma patients, difficulty in performing cricothyrotomy may also be caused by coagulopathy, hypertension, and subcutaneous distortion. 8 In particular, in the case of maxillofacial, mandibular, or neck injury preventing oro- or nasotracheal intubation, there may be concomitant trauma of the trachea, making orientation difficult for surgical access of the CTM.
Surgical cricothyrotomy has been proven to be equally feasible for surgeons, anesthesiologists, and intensive care specialists. 9 Because our participants were ICU physicians who had used the Seldinger technique for other procedures and also had some surgical training, we do not think our participants were biased toward one method or the other. Our time intervals differed from previous studies, in which surgical 10,11 and percutaneous 12 access required less time for paramedic students, medical students, or interns (46 ± 17, 43 ± 44, and < 30 s, respectively). Our incidence of injury was less than in a study in dogs 13 but comparable to a complication rate of 14% in patients. 12 
In conclusion, first-time performers of both surgical and Seldinger technique cricothyrotomy have similarly poor results in cadavers. Further studies are needed to define the learning curve for both surgical and Seldinger technique cricothyrotomy.
The authors thank Thomas Staudinger, M.D., for his support in preparing the manuscript.
Davidson TM, Magit AE: Surgical airway, Airway Management: Principles and Practice. Edited by Benumof JL. St. Louis, Mosby–Year Book, 1996, pp 513–30
American Society of Anesthesiologists Tasks Force on Management of the Difficult Airway: Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. A NESTHESIOLOGY 1993; 78:597–602American Society of Anesthesiologists Tasks Force on Management of the Difficult Airway:,
European Resuscitation Council, Airway, Ventilation Working Group: Guidelines for the advanced management of the airway and ventilation during resuscitation. Resuscitation 1996; 31:201–230European Resuscitation Council, Airway, Ventilation Working Group:,
Florete OG Jr: Airway management, Critical Care. Edited by Civetta JM, Taylor RW, Kirby RR. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1992, pp 1419–36
Silva WE, Hughes J: Tracheotomy, Intensive Care Medicine, 2nd ed. Edited by Rippe JM, Irwin RS, Alpert JS, Fink MP. Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1991, pp 169–82
Caplan RA, Posner KL, Ward RJ, Cheney FW: Adverse respiratory events in anesthesia: A closed claims analysis. A NESTHESIOLOGY 1990; 72:828–33Caplan, RA Posner, KL Ward, RJ Cheney, FW
Ravlo O, Bach V, Lybecker H, Moller JT, Werner M, Nielsen HK: A comparison between two emergency cricothyroidotomy instruments. Acta Anaesth Scand 1987; 31:317–9Ravlo, O Bach, V Lybecker, H Moller, JT Werner, M Nielsen, HK
Jacobson LE, Gomez GA, Sobieray RJ, Rodman GH, Solotkin KC, Misinski ME: Surgical cricothyroidotomy in trauma patients: analysis of its use by paramedics in the field. J Trauma 1996; 41:15–20Jacobson, LE Gomez, GA Sobieray, RJ Rodman, GH Solotkin, KC Misinski, ME
Leibovici D, Fredman B, Gofrit ON, Shemer J, Blumenfeld A, Shapira SC: Prehospital cricothyrotomy by physicians. Am J Emerg Med 1997; 15:91–3Leibovici, D Fredman, B Gofrit, ON Shemer, J Blumenfeld, A Shapira, SC
Johnson DR, Dunlap A, McFeeley P, Gaffney J, Busick B: Cricothyrotomy performed by prehospital personnel: A comparison of two techniques in a human cadaver model. Am J Emerg Med 1993; 11:207–9Johnson, DR Dunlap, A McFeeley, P Gaffney, J Busick, B
Holmes JF, Panacek EA, Sakles JC, Brofeldt BT: Comparison of 2 cricothyrotomy techniques: Standard method versus rapid 4-step technique. Ann Emerg Med 1998; 32:442–447Holmes, JF Panacek, EA Sakles, JC Brofeldt, BT
Toye FJ, Weinstein JD: Clinical experience with percutaneous tracheostomy and cricothyroidotomy in 100 patients. J Trauma 1986; 26:1034–40Toye, FJ Weinstein, JD
Bjoraker DG, Kumar NB, Brown ACD: Evaluation of an emergency cricothyrotomy instrument. Crit Care Med 1987; 15:157–60Bjoraker, DG Kumar, NB Brown, ACD
Table 1. Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Cricothyrotomy (N = 40)
Image not available
Table 1. Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Cricothyrotomy (N = 40)
Table 2. Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Cricothyrotomy (N = 40)
Image not available
Table 2. Surgical versus  Seldinger Technique Cricothyrotomy (N = 40)