The Impact of Social Media on Emergency Medical Training: A Study on Needle Decompression Video Dynamics and Interaction Indices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66288/actamedi.2026.83Keywords:
Tension Pneumothorax, Needle Decompression, Youtube metricsAbstract
Background: Emergency needle decompression is a critical, life-saving intervention for managing tension pneumothorax. Despite its importance, the procedure faces challenges regarding anatomical landmarks, needle length, and high failure rates. This study analyzes the reach and engagement of educational content on YouTube regarding this procedure.
Methods: Using "YouTube Scraper" software, metadata from 55 videos published between 2020 and 2026 were analyzed. Keywords included “Tension Pneumothorax” and “Needle Decompression”. Data metrics such as view counts, likes, and duration were used to calculate an interaction index (likes/views) and viewing rates (views/time). Statistical analysis was performed using JASP (Version 0.96).
Results: Analysis revealed a significant surge in engagement in recent years. Specifically, 2026 exhibited the highest interaction index (mean: 8.86), significantly outperforming previous years (p=0.003). Viewing rates for 2026 were also significantly higher than all other years, with 2025 following in second place (p < 0.001). Descriptive statistics showed an average viewing rate of 1761 and a mean interaction index of 2.327 across the dataset.
Conclusion: While engagement with needle decompression content on YouTube is at an all-time high, clinical literature reminds us that the procedure has a 32.84% failure rate. Success is highly dependent on needle length—reducing failure by 7.76% per cm—and anatomical site selection. Given the high interaction rates, digital platforms offer a powerful educational tool, but content must strictly adhere to evidence-based guidelines to prevent severe complications like cardiac or intercostal injury.
References
1. American College of Surgeons. Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) Student Course Manual. 10th ed. Chicago: ACS; 2018.
2. European Trauma Course Organization. European Trauma Course Manual. 2020.
3. Leigh-Smith S, Harris T. Tension pneumothorax—time for a re-think? Emerg Med J. 2005;22:8–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2003.010421
4. Laan DV et al. Chest wall thickness and decompression failure. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(2):263–268.
5. Inaba K et al. Optimal positioning for needle thoracostomy. J Trauma. 2011;71:378–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31822d9618
6. Zortuk O. YouTube Scraper methodology for pneumothorax videos. Zenodo; 2025.
7. Hassona Y et al. YouTube as a source of medical information. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43:202–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12434
8. Delli K et al. Is YouTube useful as a source of information? Oral Dis. 2015;21:583–588.
9. Zortuk Ö. Youtube Pneumothorax Scraper (1.4). Zenodo; 2025.
10. Zortuk O. Impact Characteristics of Pneumothorax Videos Published on YouTube: 2020–2025. Acta Medica Young Doctors. 2025;1(3):43–49.
11. Büyükçavuş M, Kurnaz S. Are YouTube™ Videos a Reliable Source of Information About Root Resorption? Forum Ortodontyczne. 2020;16:201–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/for.2020.100177
12. Light RW. Pleural Diseases. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
13. Roberts DJ et al. Needle thoracostomy: clinical effectiveness. CJEM. 2015;17(4):409–421.
14. Degiannis E et al. Needle decompression meta-analysis. Injury. 2025.
15. Butler KL et al. Needle thoracostomy success rates. Am Surg. 2003;69:391–394.
16. Laan DV et al. Needle length and failure rate analysis. J Trauma. 2016.
17. Powers KA et al. Needle thoracostomy: outcomes study. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014.
18. Chang HY et al. Comparison of anterior vs lateral decompression. Emerg Med J. 2014.
19. Rawlins R et al. Cardiac injury from needle decompression. Injury. 2003.
20. Ball CG et al. Complications of needle thoracostomy. J Trauma. 2010.
21. Clemency BM et al. Chest wall thickness predictors. Am J Emerg Med. 2015.
22. Sanchez LD et al. Reference values for chest wall thickness. Acad Emerg Med. 2011.
23. Kaserer A et al. Capnography in pneumothorax detection. Anesth Analg. 2017.
24. Seamon MJ et al. Prehospital needle decompression outcomes. J Trauma. 2009.
25. Britten S et al. Risks and benefits of needle thoracostomy. Resuscitation. 2012.
26. Tintinalli JE. Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide. 9th ed. McGraw-Hill; 2020.
27. Walls RM et al. Rosen’s Emergency Medicine. 10th ed. Elsevier; 2022.
28. Havelock T et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines. Thorax. 2010.
29. Kwiatt M, Tarbox A. Thoracostomy complications review. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2013.
30. Barton ED et al. Needle thoracostomy success rates. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1995.
31. Harcke HT et al. Failure rates of needle decompression. Emerg Radiol. 2007.
32. Hagiwara A et al. New technologies in pneumothorax detection. J Trauma. 2007.
33. Kaserer A et al. Colorimetric CO₂ detection device study. Br J Anaesth. 2018.
34. Smith J et al. Training in emergency procedures. Emerg Med J. 2013.
35. Advanced Trauma Life Support Committee. ATLS updates. ACS; 2023.
36. Degiannis E et al. Advances in needle decompression techniques. Injury. 2025.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sedat Özbay
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
