Cargando…

Comparison of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation performed by paramedics using the Macintosh blade for direct laryngoscopy is associated with a high incidence of complications. The novel technique of video laryngoscopy has been shown to improve glottic view and intubation success in the operating...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Piepho, Tim, Weinert, Kathrin, Heid, Florian M, Werner, Christian, Noppens, Rüdiger R
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21241469
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-4
_version_ 1782197490385158144
author Piepho, Tim
Weinert, Kathrin
Heid, Florian M
Werner, Christian
Noppens, Rüdiger R
author_facet Piepho, Tim
Weinert, Kathrin
Heid, Florian M
Werner, Christian
Noppens, Rüdiger R
author_sort Piepho, Tim
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation performed by paramedics using the Macintosh blade for direct laryngoscopy is associated with a high incidence of complications. The novel technique of video laryngoscopy has been shown to improve glottic view and intubation success in the operating room. The aim of this study was to compare glottic view, time of intubation and success rate of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger video laryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics. METHODS: Thirty paramedics performed six intubations in a randomised order with all three laryngoscopes in an airway simulator with a normal airway. Subsequently, every participant performed one intubation attempt with each device in the same manikin with simulated cervical spine rigidity using a cervical collar. Glottic view, time until visualisation of the glottis and time until first ventilation were evaluated. RESULTS: Time until first ventilation was equivalent after three intubations in the first scenario. In the scenario with decreased cervical motion, the time until first ventilation was longer using the McGrath(® )compared to the GlideScope(® )and AMacintosh (p < 0.01). The success rate for endotracheal intubation was similar for all three devices. Glottic view was only improved using the McGrath(® )device (p < 0.001) compared to using the Macintosh blade. CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve for video laryngoscopy in paramedics was steep in this study. However, these data do not support prehospital use of the McGrath(® )and GlideScope(® )devices by paramedics.
format Text
id pubmed-3032718
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30327182011-02-03 Comparison of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics Piepho, Tim Weinert, Kathrin Heid, Florian M Werner, Christian Noppens, Rüdiger R Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation performed by paramedics using the Macintosh blade for direct laryngoscopy is associated with a high incidence of complications. The novel technique of video laryngoscopy has been shown to improve glottic view and intubation success in the operating room. The aim of this study was to compare glottic view, time of intubation and success rate of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger video laryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics. METHODS: Thirty paramedics performed six intubations in a randomised order with all three laryngoscopes in an airway simulator with a normal airway. Subsequently, every participant performed one intubation attempt with each device in the same manikin with simulated cervical spine rigidity using a cervical collar. Glottic view, time until visualisation of the glottis and time until first ventilation were evaluated. RESULTS: Time until first ventilation was equivalent after three intubations in the first scenario. In the scenario with decreased cervical motion, the time until first ventilation was longer using the McGrath(® )compared to the GlideScope(® )and AMacintosh (p < 0.01). The success rate for endotracheal intubation was similar for all three devices. Glottic view was only improved using the McGrath(® )device (p < 0.001) compared to using the Macintosh blade. CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve for video laryngoscopy in paramedics was steep in this study. However, these data do not support prehospital use of the McGrath(® )and GlideScope(® )devices by paramedics. BioMed Central 2011-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3032718/ /pubmed/21241469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-4 Text en Copyright ©2011 Piepho et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Piepho, Tim
Weinert, Kathrin
Heid, Florian M
Werner, Christian
Noppens, Rüdiger R
Comparison of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics
title Comparison of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics
title_full Comparison of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics
title_fullStr Comparison of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics
title_short Comparison of the McGrath(® )Series 5 and GlideScope(® )Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics
title_sort comparison of the mcgrath(® )series 5 and glidescope(® )ranger with the macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21241469
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-4
work_keys_str_mv AT piephotim comparisonofthemcgrathseries5andglidescoperangerwiththemacintoshlaryngoscopebyparamedics
AT weinertkathrin comparisonofthemcgrathseries5andglidescoperangerwiththemacintoshlaryngoscopebyparamedics
AT heidflorianm comparisonofthemcgrathseries5andglidescoperangerwiththemacintoshlaryngoscopebyparamedics
AT wernerchristian comparisonofthemcgrathseries5andglidescoperangerwiththemacintoshlaryngoscopebyparamedics
AT noppensrudigerr comparisonofthemcgrathseries5andglidescoperangerwiththemacintoshlaryngoscopebyparamedics