Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 26, 2026
C-arm-Free Simultaneous OLIF51 and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in a Single Lateral Position
Published on: September 16, 2022
Comparison of two intraosseous devices in adult patients in the emergency setting: a pilot study
Omer F Demir1, Kemal Aydin, Huriye Akay
1aDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital bDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine cDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara dDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir eDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Acibadem University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Objective:
To compare two intraosseous (IO) insertion devices in terms of safety and ease of use in patients who need urgent vascular access in the emergency setting following failed attempts for intravenous lines.
Methods:
This prospective, randomized clinical study compared two different IO access devices in adults (≥16 years of age or weighing>40 kg) admitted to our emergency department with difficult peripheral venous access and in need of urgent intervention. The findings were compared in terms of the rates of successful insertion of spring-loaded impact-driven adult BIG and the battery-driven EZ-IO devices on the first attempt, difficulty of use, time taken to complete the insertion, and complication rates.
Results:
A total of 52 patients were enrolled and randomized for the study. IO access was performed in 26 patients using the BIG device and in 26 patients using the EZ-IO device. The rates of successful insertion of BIG and EZ-IO devices on the first attempt were 92.3 and 84.6%, respectively (P=0.668). The time taken to complete the procedure was significantly greater in the EZ-IO group (5.2±2.2 s) compared with the BIG group (2.8±1.2 s) (P<0.001). Difficulty of use was scored using the visual analogue scale, which yielded the mean visual analogue scale for EZ-IO and BIG (25.4±12.6 and 8.6±6.4 mm, respectively) (P<0.001). No mechanical problems or technique-related complications were encountered in any of the groups.
Conclusion:
Both EZ-IO and BIG are shown to be reliable and safe methods for insertion of intravascular access in emergency conditions.
More Related Videos
07:41An Intramedullary Locking Nail for Standardized Fixation of Femur Osteotomies to Analyze Normal and Defective Bone Healing in Mice
Published on: November 13, 2016
04:41Treatment with Locking Intramedullary Nailing for Intertrochanteric Fracture of the Femur Utilizing a New Awl with a Distal Positioner
Published on: June 6, 2025