scholarly journals A Randomized Comparison Simulating Face to Face Endotracheal Intubation of Pentax Airway Scope, C-MAC Video Laryngoscope, Glidescope Video Laryngoscope, and Macintosh Laryngoscope

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyun Young Choi ◽  
Young Min Oh ◽  
Gu Hyun Kang ◽  
Hyunggoo Kang ◽  
Yong Soo Jang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Emergency Medical Technicians ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Ventilation Time ◽  
Airway Scope ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Intubation Success Rate ◽  
Glidescope Video Laryngoscope

Objectives. Early airway management is very important for severely ill patients. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of face to face intubation in four different types of laryngoscopes (Macintosh laryngoscope, Pentax airway scope (AWS), Glidescope video laryngoscope (GVL), and C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC)).Method. Ninety-five nurses and emergency medical technicians were trained to use the AWS, C-MAC, GVL and Macintosh laryngoscope with standard airway trainer manikin and face to face intubation. We compared VCET (vocal cord exposure time), tube pass time, 1st ventilation time, VCET to tube pass time, tube pass time to 1st ventilation time, and POGO (percentage of glottis opening) score. In addition, we compared success rate according to the number of attempts and complications.Result. VCET was similar among all laryngoscopes and POGO score was higher in AWS. AWS and Macintosh blade were faster than GVL and C-MAC in total intubation time. Face to face intubation success rate was lower in GVL than other laryngoscopes.Conclusion. AWS and Macintosh were favorable laryngoscopes in face to face intubation. GVL had disadvantage performing face to face intubation.

scholarly journals Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope be used first line for all oral intubations or only in those with a difficult airway? A review of current literature

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 322-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrie-Marie Russell ◽  
Anil Hormis ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Difficult Airway ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
First Line ◽  
Glottic View ◽  
Glidescope Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Difficult Airways

The purpose of this study was to review literature that looked into the efficacy of the Glidescope video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope in oral endotracheal intubations. We aimed to answer the question ‘Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope laryngoscopes be used as first line intubation aids or only in the difficult airway?’ A systematic search of electronic databases was made. The inclusion criteria included: Glidescope, video laryngoscope, and Macintosh laryngoscope in human studies. The study aimed to compare first attempt success rate, glottic view and intubation time in papers dating between 2009 and 2017. Eleven trials with a total of 7,919 patients with both difficult and normal airways were included. The trials showed an improvement in first attempt success rate and glottic view with the Glidescope video laryngoscope especially in those with difficult airways. Overall time to intubate showed no significant differences between the Glidescope video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope although it was identified that with increased training and experience with the Glidescope video laryngoscope, intubation time was reduced. Glidescope video laryngoscopes show advantages over the Macintosh laryngoscopes in obtaining better glottic views in those with difficult airways. However its use is not supported in all routine intubations.

scholarly journals Comparison of Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope for Face-to-Face Intubation in Sitting Manikin Model With Limitation of Neck Motion by Unexperienced Personnel

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-28
Author(s):  
Phatthranit Phattharapornjaroen ◽  
Promphet Nuanprom ◽  
Prayoot Suk-um ◽  
Manina Thilarak ◽  
Chaiyaporn Yuksen
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Vocal Cord ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Intubation Technique ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Spine Injuries

Background: Trauma patients who entrapped in the accident vehicle are predispose to have cervical spine injuries and they needed to be intubated with face-to-face intubation technique using Macintosh laryngoscope. Nowadays, video laryngoscope has been introduced to improve the intubation technique. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for face-to-face intubation in sitting manikin model with limitation of neck motion. Methods: The study was performed in a randomized experimental study. Subjects were divided into 2 groups both did face-to-face intubation using video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in a sitting manikin model with limitation of neck motion. The success rate of intubation, time to finish intubation, and vocal cord visualization were analyzed. Results: Of 41 subjects including 2nd and 3rd year paramedic students, 21 subjects went to video laryngoscope group, and 20 subjects went to Macintosh laryngoscopes group. The Macintosh laryngoscope intubation technique showed significantly better success rate compared to video laryngoscope (100% and 25%, P < .001). In addition, intubation time of Macintosh laryngoscope was significantly less than video laryngoscope (mean [SD], 27 [24.7] and 75 [66.3] seconds, P < .001). However, vocal cord visualization from both laryngoscope techniques showed no statistically significant (P = .08). Conclusions: Intubation training of Macintosh laryngoscope for in sitting model with neck motion limitation showed better success rate and less time than video laryngoscope, with the same vocal cord visualization.  

scholarly journals Comparison of Direct and Indirect Laryngoscopes in Vomitus and Hematemesis Settings: A Randomized Simulation Trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryosuke Mihara ◽  
Nobuyasu Komasawa ◽  
Sayuri Matsunami ◽  
Toshiaki Minami
Keyword(s):  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope ◽  
Mcgrath Mac ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Intubation Success ◽  
Intubation Success Rate

Background.Videolaryngoscopes may not be useful in the presence of hematemesis or vomitus. We compared the utility of the Macintosh laryngoscope (McL), which is a direct laryngoscope, with that of the Pentax-AWS Airwayscope (AWS) and McGRATH MAC (McGRATH), which are videolaryngoscopes, in simulated hematemesis and vomitus settings.Methods.Seventeen anesthesiologists with more than 1 year of experience performed tracheal intubation on an adult manikin using McL, AWS, and McGRATH under normal, hematemesis, and vomitus simulations.Results.In the normal setting, the intubation success rate was 100% for all three laryngoscopes. In the hematemesis settings, the intubation success rate differed significantly among the three laryngoscopes (P=0.021). In the vomitus settings, all participants succeeded in tracheal intubation with McL or McGRATH, while five failed in the AWS trial with significant difference (P=0.003). The intubation time did not significantly differ in normal settings, while it was significantly longer in the AWS trial compared to McL or McGRATH trial in the hematemesis or vomitus settings (P<0.001, compared to McL or McGRATH in both settings).Conclusion.The performance of McGRATH and McL can be superior to that of AWS for tracheal intubation in vomitus and hematemesis settings in adults.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Airway Scope at Improving the Success Rate of the First Intubation Attempt by Nonexpert Physicians: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Haruyuki Yuasa ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Naohiro Yonemoto ◽  
Yoichiro Kasahara ◽  
Hiroshi Nonogi
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Dental Trauma ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Intubation Attempt ◽  
New Device ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Airway Scope ◽  
Intubation Success Rate ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Purpose. The aim of the study was to assess the performance of Airway Scope (AWS) on the first attempt at intubation in manikins by nonexpert physicians. Methods. A randomized crossover trial involving seven scenarios. Participants: residents of a cardiovascular hospital. In group A, the AWS procedure was performed first followed by Machintouch Laryngoscopy (ML), while in group B the ML procedure was performed first and then the AWS. The primary outcome assessed was the success of first intubation attempt in a normal scenario. The secondary outcome assessments were success in six other scenarios, and also elapsed time and dental trauma caused in all scenarios. Results. There were 34 participants. All AWS-assisted intubations were successfully completed, but one ML-assisted intubation failed in the normal scenario (P=0.32). The outcomes achieved by the AWS in scenarios involving cervical immobilization (P=0.03), tongue edema (P≤0.001), pharyngeal obstruction (P≤0.001), and jaw trismus (P=0.001) were superior to those obtained with the ML. Conclusions. Use of AWS-assisted intubation in manikin scenarios results in a significantly high intubation success rate on the first attempt by nonexpert physicians. These findings suggest this new device will be useful for nonexpert physicians in emergency situations.

Macintosh laryngoscope, i-view™, and C-MAC® video laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation with an aerosol box: A randomized, crossover, manikin study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiyuki Nakanishi ◽  
Yoshiki Sento ◽  
Yuji Kamimura ◽  
Kazuya Sobue
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Lehane Grade ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Difficulty Scale

Abstract Background: The aerosol box was designed to prevent cough droplets from spreading, but it can impede tracheal intubation. We tested the hypothesis that the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (C-MAC) with an external display is more useful than the i-view™ video laryngoscope (i-view) with an integrated display, or a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for tracheal intubation with an aerosol box.Methods: This prospective, randomized, crossover simulation study was conducted at an operating room of the two hospitals (a university hospital and a tertiary teaching hospital). We recruited 37 medical personnel (36 anesthesiologists and 1 dental anesthesiologist) who were working in the fields of anesthesia and intensive care with > 2 years of dedicated anesthesia experience from five hospitals. We divided the participants into six groups to use the laryngoscope in a determined order. After the training using each laryngoscope without a box, the participants performed tracheal intubation thrice with each laryngoscope with at least two-hour intervals. The primary outcome was the intubation time. The secondary outcomes were the success rate, Cormack-Lehane grade, and subjective difficulty scale score (numeric rating scale 0–10, 0: no difficulty, 10: highest difficulty). We used the Friedman test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni adjustment. Data are shown as median [interquartile range].Results: Thirty-seven personnel (11 women and 26 men) with 12 [5–19] (median [interquartile range]) years of anesthesia and intensive care experience were enrolled. There was no significant difference in the intubation time: 30 [26–32] s for Macintosh, 29 [26–32] s for i-view, and 29 [25–31] s for C-MAC (P=0.247). The success rate was 95%–100% without significant difference (P=0.135). The i-view and C-MAC video laryngoscopes exhibited superior Cormack-Lehane grades and lower subjective difficulty scale scores than the Macintosh laryngoscope; however, there were no differences between the i-view and C-MAC video laryngoscopes.Conclusions: Rapid and highly successful tracheal intubation was possible with Macintosh laryngoscope, i-view, and C-MAC video laryngoscopes on a manikin with an aerosol box. Improved Cormack-Lehane grade and ease of procedure may support the use of video laryngoscopes.Trial registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, identifier UMIN000040269.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document