scholarly journals Does C-MAC ® video laryngoscope improve the nasotracheal intubating conditions compared to Macintosh direct laryngoscope in paediatric patients posted for tonsillectomy surgeries?

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (10) ◽  
pp. 732 ◽  
Author(s):  
VinutaV Patil ◽  
BalaH Subramanya ◽  
N Kiranchand ◽  
SBala Bhaskar ◽  
Srinivasalu Dammur
Keyword(s):  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubating Conditions ◽  
Paediatric Patients

scholarly journals A Comparison of the C-MAC Video Laryngoscope to the Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope for Intubation in the Emergency Department

2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 739-748 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Sakles ◽  
Jarrod Mosier ◽  
Stephen Chiu ◽  
Mari Cosentino ◽  
Leah Kalin
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope

scholarly journals Comparison of videolaryngoscope & direct laryngoscope for intubation in critically ill patients: A Bayesian meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Souvik Maitra ◽  
Anirban Som ◽  
Sulagna Bhattacharjee
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Model ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Credible Interval ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Bayesian Methodology ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Intubation Success ◽  
Intubation Success Rate

AbstractPurposeTo identify the benefit of video laryngoscope (VL) over direct laryngoscope (DL) for intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU)Material & MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VL with DL for intubation in ICU by was conducted in conventional frequentist methodology and also incorporated of the previous evidences from observational studies in Bayesian methodology.ResultsData of 1464 patients from six RCTs have been included in this meta-analysis. In conventional meta-analysis of RCTs, first attempt intubation success rate was similar between VL and DL group [p=0.39]. Rate of esophageal intubation was significantly less with VL [p=0.03] and glottic visualization was significantly improved with VL in comparison to DL [p=0.009]. Time to intubation was similar in both the group [p=0.48]. When evidences from a meta-analysis of observational studies incorporated in Bayesian model, first attempt intubation success is significantly higher with VL [posterior median log OR (95% credible interval) 0.50 (0.06, 1.00)].ConclusionEvidences from both observational studies and RCTs synthesized in Bayesian methodology suggest that use of VL for endotracheal intubation in critically patients may be associated with higher first intubation success when compared to DL.

scholarly journals First attempt success of video versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation by ambulance nurses: a prospective observational study

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 1039-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wim Breeman ◽  
Mark G. Van Vledder ◽  
Michael H. J. Verhofstad ◽  
Albert Visser ◽  
Esther M. M. Van Lieshout
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Direct Laryngoscopy ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Spontaneous Circulation ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope ◽  
Positive Effect

Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the rate of first attempt success of endotracheal intubation performed by ambulance nurses in patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)  of 3 using video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted in a single, independent ambulance service. Twenty of a total of 65 nurse-staffed ambulances were equipped with a video laryngoscope; a classic direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) was available on all 65 ambulances. The primary outcome was first attempt success of the intubation. Secondary outcomes were overall success, time needed for intubation, adverse events, technical or environmental issues encountered, and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Ambulance nurses were asked if the intubation device had affected the outcome of the intubation. Results The first attempt success rate in the video laryngoscopy group [53 of 93 attempts (57%)] did not differ from that in the direct laryngoscopy group [61 of 126 (48%); p = 0.221]. However, the second attempt success rate was higher in the video laryngoscopy group [77/93 (83%) versus 80/126 (63%), p = 0.002]. The median time needed for the intubation (53 versus 56 s) was similar in both groups. Ambulance nurses more often expected a positive effect when performing endotracheal intubation with a video laryngoscope (n = 72, 81%) compared with a direct laryngoscope (n = 49, 52%; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although no significant effect on the first attempt success was found, video laryngoscopy did increase the overall success rate. Ambulance nurses had a more positive valuation of the video laryngoscope with respect to success chances.

scholarly journals Why USB-endoscope laryngoscopy is as effective as video laryngoscopy

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. E55-59
Author(s):  
Meliha Findik ◽  
Afsin E. Kayipmaz ◽  
Cemil Kavalci ◽  
Tugce Sencelikel Sencelikel ◽  
Murat Muratoglu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Laryngoscopy ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope ◽  
Correct Placement ◽  
Custom Made ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of a low-cost custom-made universal serial bus (USB) endoscope laryngoscope for intubation with a direct laryngoscope and a high-cost video laryngoscope in a mannequin study. Methods: We used one intubation simulator model (mannequin) in our study. A USB endoscope was mounted to the direct laryngoscope as a custom-made USB endoscope laryngoscope (USB-L). We used a video laryngoscope (Glidescope®, Verathon, USA) and a direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for comparison. Intubation time and the correct placement of the tube were measured. Intubations were performed by two operators and results were compared. Results: We found a statistically significant difference between the video and direct laryngoscope groups (p < 0.001), as well as between the USB-L and direct laryngoscope groups (p = 0.001) for Operator 1. For Operator 2, there was a statistically significant difference between the video laryngoscope group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.022); however, we did not find a significant difference between the USB-L group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.154). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the USB-L and video laryngoscope groups for either operator (p=0.347 for Operator 1 and p>0.999 for Operator 2). Conclusion: Our study showed that USB endoscope laryngoscope provided similar intubation time to video laryngoscopy at a fraction of the cost; and both had superior times in comparison with direct laryngoscopy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document