Cargando…

Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study

BACKGROUND: Videolaryngoscopy presents a new approach for the management of the difficult and rescue airway. There is little available evidence to compare the performance features of these devices in true difficult laryngoscopy. METHODS: A prospective randomized crossover study was performed compari...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Healy, David W, Picton, Paul, Morris, Michelle, Turner, Christopher
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22720884
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-12-11
_version_ 1782252673945305088
author Healy, David W
Picton, Paul
Morris, Michelle
Turner, Christopher
author_facet Healy, David W
Picton, Paul
Morris, Michelle
Turner, Christopher
author_sort Healy, David W
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Videolaryngoscopy presents a new approach for the management of the difficult and rescue airway. There is little available evidence to compare the performance features of these devices in true difficult laryngoscopy. METHODS: A prospective randomized crossover study was performed comparing the performance features of the Macintosh Laryngoscope, Glidescope, Storz CMAC and Storz DCI videolaryngoscope. Thirty anesthesia providers attempted intubation with each of the 4 laryngoscopes in a high fidelity difficult laryngoscopy manikin. The time to successful intubation (TTSI) was recorded for each device, along with failure rate, and the best view of the glottis obtained. RESULTS: Use of the Glidescope, CMAC and Storz videolaryngoscopes improved the view of the glottis compared with use of the Macintosh blade (GEE, p = 0.000, p = 0.002, p = 0.000 respectively). Use of the CMAC resulted in an improved view compared with use of the Storz VL (Fishers, p = 0.05). Use of the Glidescope or Storz videolaryngoscope blade resulted in a longer TTSI compared with either the Macintosh (GLM, p = 0.000, p = 0.029 respectively) or CMAC blades (GLM, p = 0.000, p = 0.033 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Unsurprisingly, when used in a simulated difficult laryngoscopy, all the videolaryngoscopes resulted in a better view of the glottis than the Macintosh blade. However, interestingly the CMAC was found to provide a better laryngoscopic view that the Storz DCI Videolaryngoscope. Additionally, use of either the Glidescope or Storz DCI Videolaryngoscope resulted in a prolonged time to successful intubation compared with use of the CMAC or Macintosh blade. The use of the CMAC during manikin simulated difficult laryngoscopy combined the efficacy of attainment of laryngoscopic view with the expediency of successful intubation. Use of the Macintosh blade combined expedience with success, despite a limited laryngoscopic view. The limitations of a manikin model of difficult laryngoscopy limits the conclusions for extrapolation into clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3519500
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35195002012-12-12 Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study Healy, David W Picton, Paul Morris, Michelle Turner, Christopher BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Videolaryngoscopy presents a new approach for the management of the difficult and rescue airway. There is little available evidence to compare the performance features of these devices in true difficult laryngoscopy. METHODS: A prospective randomized crossover study was performed comparing the performance features of the Macintosh Laryngoscope, Glidescope, Storz CMAC and Storz DCI videolaryngoscope. Thirty anesthesia providers attempted intubation with each of the 4 laryngoscopes in a high fidelity difficult laryngoscopy manikin. The time to successful intubation (TTSI) was recorded for each device, along with failure rate, and the best view of the glottis obtained. RESULTS: Use of the Glidescope, CMAC and Storz videolaryngoscopes improved the view of the glottis compared with use of the Macintosh blade (GEE, p = 0.000, p = 0.002, p = 0.000 respectively). Use of the CMAC resulted in an improved view compared with use of the Storz VL (Fishers, p = 0.05). Use of the Glidescope or Storz videolaryngoscope blade resulted in a longer TTSI compared with either the Macintosh (GLM, p = 0.000, p = 0.029 respectively) or CMAC blades (GLM, p = 0.000, p = 0.033 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Unsurprisingly, when used in a simulated difficult laryngoscopy, all the videolaryngoscopes resulted in a better view of the glottis than the Macintosh blade. However, interestingly the CMAC was found to provide a better laryngoscopic view that the Storz DCI Videolaryngoscope. Additionally, use of either the Glidescope or Storz DCI Videolaryngoscope resulted in a prolonged time to successful intubation compared with use of the CMAC or Macintosh blade. The use of the CMAC during manikin simulated difficult laryngoscopy combined the efficacy of attainment of laryngoscopic view with the expediency of successful intubation. Use of the Macintosh blade combined expedience with success, despite a limited laryngoscopic view. The limitations of a manikin model of difficult laryngoscopy limits the conclusions for extrapolation into clinical practice. BioMed Central 2012-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC3519500/ /pubmed/22720884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-12-11 Text en Copyright ©2012 Healy 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 Research Article
Healy, David W
Picton, Paul
Morris, Michelle
Turner, Christopher
Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study
title Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study
title_full Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study
title_fullStr Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study
title_short Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study
title_sort comparison of the glidescope, cmac, storz dci with the macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22720884
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-12-11
work_keys_str_mv AT healydavidw comparisonoftheglidescopecmacstorzdciwiththemacintoshlaryngoscopeduringsimulateddifficultlaryngoscopyamanikinstudy
AT pictonpaul comparisonoftheglidescopecmacstorzdciwiththemacintoshlaryngoscopeduringsimulateddifficultlaryngoscopyamanikinstudy
AT morrismichelle comparisonoftheglidescopecmacstorzdciwiththemacintoshlaryngoscopeduringsimulateddifficultlaryngoscopyamanikinstudy
AT turnerchristopher comparisonoftheglidescopecmacstorzdciwiththemacintoshlaryngoscopeduringsimulateddifficultlaryngoscopyamanikinstudy