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

PLoS ONE, 2022 · DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266236 · Published: October 5, 2022

Simple Explanation

This study compares different recompression treatments for severe decompression illness (DCI) affecting the nervous system, using a swine model. The researchers compared four different treatment tables to find the optimal initial treatment for severe DCI. The study found no significant differences in neurologic outcomes among the different treatment groups.

Study Duration

Not specified

Participants

141 swine

Evidence Level

Not specified

Key Findings

1
No significant differences were found in functional neurologic outcomes among the four treatment groups (TT6, TT6A-air, TT6A-nitrox, and TT6A-heliox) or between the two treatment profiles (TT6 and TT6A).
2
Animals treated with TT6 had the lowest rates of functional deficits and the fewest spinal cord lesions, though these trends were not statistically significant.
3
Functional neurologic deficit had a strong correlation with lesion area pathology.

Research Summary

This study compared four recompression treatment tables (TT6, TT6A-air, TT6A-nitrox, TT6A-heliox) for neurologic decompression illness (DCI) in a swine model. The primary outcome was the mean number of spinal cord lesions, with secondary outcomes including spinal cord lesion incidence and gross neurologic outcomes. The study concluded that TT6 performed as well as the other treatment tables and is the least resource intensive, making it the most appropriate initial treatment for neurologic DCI in swine.

Practical Implications

Treatment Protocol

TT6 is an appropriate initial recompression therapy for neurologic DCI.

Resource Allocation

TT6 is the least resource intensive treatment table.

Further Research

Future work should explore the impact of treatment table extensions.

Study Limitations

1
Exclusion of animals that did not complete recompression treatment.
2
Sedation of swine during recompression treatments may have affected perfusion.
3
Lower than expected enrollment and greater variation in spinal cord pathology increased the chance for a type II error.

Your Feedback

Was this summary helpful?

Back to Physiology