Skip to main content


Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Fig. 6 | Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Fig. 6

From: Comparison of a novel, endoscopic chest tube insertion technique versus the standard, open technique performed by novice users in a human cadaver model: a randomized, crossover, assessor-blinded study

Fig. 6

Results of Post-participation Survey. A Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used to assess various subjective parameters comparing the Reactor™ to the standard technique. Survey key: Compared to the open insertion technique, the Reactor™ device: 1. (Incision) Is associated with a smaller incision? 2. (Ease of Use) Is easier to use? 3. (Equipment) Requires less equipment? 4. (Pain) Is likely to cause LESS pain for the patient? 5. (Speed) Allows for a chest tube to be inserted more rapidly? 6. (Learning Curve) Is NOT as difficult to learn? 7. (Safety) Improves clinician safety (i.e., needle sticks, injuries, etc.)? 8. (Time) Requires LESS time to insert a chest tube? 9. (Sedation Need) Is likely to require LESS sedation and analgesia?

Back to article page