IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0266236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model

Author

Listed:
  • W Rainey Johnson
  • Nicholas G Roney
  • Hanbing Zhou
  • Geoffrey E Ciarlone
  • Brian T Williams
  • William T Green
  • Richard T Mahon
  • Hugh M Dainer
  • Brett B Hart
  • Aaron A Hall

Abstract

Background: Significant reductions in ambient pressure subject an individual to risk of decompression illness (DCI); with incidence up to 35 per 10,000 dives. In severe cases, the central nervous system is often compromised (>80%), making DCI among the most morbid of diving related injuries. While hyperbaric specialists suggest initiating recompression therapy with either a Treatment Table 6 (TT6) or 6A (TT6A), the optimal initial recompression treatment for severe DCI is unknown. Methods: Swine were exposed to an insult dive breathing air at 7.06 ATA (715.35 kPa) for 24 min followed by rapid decompression at a rate of 1.82 ATA/min (184.41 kPa/min). Swine that developed neurologic DCI within 1 hour of surfacing were block randomized to one of four United States Navy Treatment Tables (USN TT): TT6, TT6A-air (21% oxygen, 79% nitrogen), TT6A-nitrox (50% oxygen, 50% nitrogen), and TT6A-heliox (50% oxygen, 50% helium). The primary outcome was the mean number of spinal cord lesions, which was analyzed following cord harvest 24 hours after successful recompression treatment. Secondary outcomes included spinal cord lesion incidence and gross neurologic outcomes based on a pre- and post- modified Tarlov assessment. We compared outcomes among these four groups and between the two treatment profiles (i.e. TT6 and TT6A). Results: One-hundred and forty-one swine underwent the insult dive, with 61 swine meeting inclusion criteria (43%). We found no differences in baseline characteristics among the groups. We found no significant differences in functional neurologic outcomes (p = 0.77 and 0.33), spinal cord lesion incidence (p = 0.09 and 0.07), or spinal cord lesion area (p = 0.51 and 0.17) among the four treatment groups or between the two treatment profiles, respectively. While the trends were not statistically significant, animals treated with TT6 had the lowest rates of functional deficits and the fewest spinal cord lesions. Moreover, across all animals, functional neurologic deficit had strong correlation with lesion area pathology (Logistic Regression, p

Suggested Citation

  • W Rainey Johnson & Nicholas G Roney & Hanbing Zhou & Geoffrey E Ciarlone & Brian T Williams & William T Green & Richard T Mahon & Hugh M Dainer & Brett B Hart & Aaron A Hall, 2022. "Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-21, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266236
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266236
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266236&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0266236?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.