Cargando…

Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?

BACKGROUND: Alternatives to endotracheal intubation (ETI) are required when access to the cranial end of the patient is restricted. In this study, the success rate and time duration of standard intubation techniques were compared with two different supraglottic devices. Two different manikins were u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nakstad, Anders R, Sandberg, Mårten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3125355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21668944
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-36
_version_ 1782207214130298880
author Nakstad, Anders R
Sandberg, Mårten
author_facet Nakstad, Anders R
Sandberg, Mårten
author_sort Nakstad, Anders R
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Alternatives to endotracheal intubation (ETI) are required when access to the cranial end of the patient is restricted. In this study, the success rate and time duration of standard intubation techniques were compared with two different supraglottic devices. Two different manikins were used for the study, and the training effect was studied when the same manikin was repeatedly used. METHODS: Twenty anaesthesiologists from the Air Ambulance Department used iGEL(™), laryngeal tube LTSII(™ )and Macintosh laryngoscopes in two scenarios with either unrestricted (scenario A) or restricted (scenario B) access to the cranial end of the manikin. Different manikins were used for ETI and placement of the supraglottic devices. The technique selected by the physicians, the success rates and the times to completion were the primary outcomes measured. A secondary outcome of the study was an evaluation of the learning effect of using the same manikin or device several times. RESULTS: In scenario A, all anaesthesiologists secured an airway using each device within the maximum time limit of 60 seconds. In scenario B, all physicians secured the airway on the first attempt with the supraglottic devices and 16 (80%) successfully performed an ETI with either the Macintosh laryngoscope (n = 13, 65%) or with digital technique (n = 3, 15%). It took significantly longer to perform ETI (mean time 28.0 sec +/- 13.0) than to secure an airway with the supraglottic devices (iGel™: mean 12.3 sec +/- 3.6, LTSII™: mean 10.6 sec +/- 3.2). When comparing the mean time required for the two scenarios for each supraglottic device, there was a reduction in time for scenario B (significant for LTSII(™): 12.1 versus 10.6 seconds, p = 0.014). This may be due to a training effect using same manikin and device several times. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of time used to secure an airway with supraglottic devices was low for both scenarios, while classic ETI was time consuming and had a low success rate in the simulated restricted access condition. This study also demonstrates that there is a substantial training effect when simulating airway management with airway manikins. This effect must be considered when performing future studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3125355
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31253552011-06-29 Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data? Nakstad, Anders R Sandberg, Mårten Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Alternatives to endotracheal intubation (ETI) are required when access to the cranial end of the patient is restricted. In this study, the success rate and time duration of standard intubation techniques were compared with two different supraglottic devices. Two different manikins were used for the study, and the training effect was studied when the same manikin was repeatedly used. METHODS: Twenty anaesthesiologists from the Air Ambulance Department used iGEL(™), laryngeal tube LTSII(™ )and Macintosh laryngoscopes in two scenarios with either unrestricted (scenario A) or restricted (scenario B) access to the cranial end of the manikin. Different manikins were used for ETI and placement of the supraglottic devices. The technique selected by the physicians, the success rates and the times to completion were the primary outcomes measured. A secondary outcome of the study was an evaluation of the learning effect of using the same manikin or device several times. RESULTS: In scenario A, all anaesthesiologists secured an airway using each device within the maximum time limit of 60 seconds. In scenario B, all physicians secured the airway on the first attempt with the supraglottic devices and 16 (80%) successfully performed an ETI with either the Macintosh laryngoscope (n = 13, 65%) or with digital technique (n = 3, 15%). It took significantly longer to perform ETI (mean time 28.0 sec +/- 13.0) than to secure an airway with the supraglottic devices (iGel™: mean 12.3 sec +/- 3.6, LTSII™: mean 10.6 sec +/- 3.2). When comparing the mean time required for the two scenarios for each supraglottic device, there was a reduction in time for scenario B (significant for LTSII(™): 12.1 versus 10.6 seconds, p = 0.014). This may be due to a training effect using same manikin and device several times. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of time used to secure an airway with supraglottic devices was low for both scenarios, while classic ETI was time consuming and had a low success rate in the simulated restricted access condition. This study also demonstrates that there is a substantial training effect when simulating airway management with airway manikins. This effect must be considered when performing future studies. BioMed Central 2011-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3125355/ /pubmed/21668944 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-36 Text en Copyright ©2011 Nakstad and Sandberg; 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
Nakstad, Anders R
Sandberg, Mårten
Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?
title Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?
title_full Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?
title_fullStr Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?
title_full_unstemmed Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?
title_short Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?
title_sort airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3125355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21668944
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-36
work_keys_str_mv AT nakstadandersr airwaymanagementinsimulatedrestrictedaccesstoapatientcanmanikinbasedstudiesproviderelevantdata
AT sandbergmarten airwaymanagementinsimulatedrestrictedaccesstoapatientcanmanikinbasedstudiesproviderelevantdata