Cargando…
Comparison of intubation times using a manikin with an immobilized cervical spine: Macintosh laryngoscope vs. GlideScope vs. fiberoptic bronchoscope
OBJECTIVE: Airway management in patients with suspected cervical spine injury is classified as a “difficult airway.” The best device for managing difficult airways is not known. Therefore, we conducted an intubation study simulating patients with cervical spine injury using three devices: a conventi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052909/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27752604 http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.15.043 |
_version_ | 1782458309317492736 |
---|---|
author | Ko, Jung-In Ha, Sang Ook Koo, Min Seok Kwon, Miyoung Kim, Jieun Jeon, Jin Park, So Hee Shim, Sangwoo Chang, Youjin Park, Taejin |
author_facet | Ko, Jung-In Ha, Sang Ook Koo, Min Seok Kwon, Miyoung Kim, Jieun Jeon, Jin Park, So Hee Shim, Sangwoo Chang, Youjin Park, Taejin |
author_sort | Ko, Jung-In |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Airway management in patients with suspected cervical spine injury is classified as a “difficult airway.” The best device for managing difficult airways is not known. Therefore, we conducted an intubation study simulating patients with cervical spine injury using three devices: a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope, a video laryngoscope (GlideScope), and a fiberoptic bronchoscope (MAF-TM). Success rates, intubation time, and complication rates were compared. METHODS: Nine physician experts in airway management participated in this study. Cervical immobilization was used to simulate a difficult airway. Each participant performed intubation using airway devices in a randomly chosen order. We measured the time to vocal cord visualization, time to endotracheal tube insertion, and total tracheal intubation time. Success rates and dental injury rates were compared between devices. RESULTS: Total tracheal intubation time using the Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope, and fiberoptic bronchoscope was 13.3 (range, 11.1 to 20.1), 14.9 (range, 12.7 to 22.3), and 19.4 seconds (range, 14.1 to 32.5), respectively. Total tracheal intubation time differed significantly among the devices (P=0.009). Success rates for the Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope, and fiberoptic bronchoscope were 98%, 96%, and 100%, respectively, and dental injury rates were 5%, 19%, and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The fiberoptic bronchoscope required longer intubation times than the other devices. However, this device had the best success rate with the least incidence of dental injury. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5052909 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50529092016-10-17 Comparison of intubation times using a manikin with an immobilized cervical spine: Macintosh laryngoscope vs. GlideScope vs. fiberoptic bronchoscope Ko, Jung-In Ha, Sang Ook Koo, Min Seok Kwon, Miyoung Kim, Jieun Jeon, Jin Park, So Hee Shim, Sangwoo Chang, Youjin Park, Taejin Clin Exp Emerg Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: Airway management in patients with suspected cervical spine injury is classified as a “difficult airway.” The best device for managing difficult airways is not known. Therefore, we conducted an intubation study simulating patients with cervical spine injury using three devices: a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope, a video laryngoscope (GlideScope), and a fiberoptic bronchoscope (MAF-TM). Success rates, intubation time, and complication rates were compared. METHODS: Nine physician experts in airway management participated in this study. Cervical immobilization was used to simulate a difficult airway. Each participant performed intubation using airway devices in a randomly chosen order. We measured the time to vocal cord visualization, time to endotracheal tube insertion, and total tracheal intubation time. Success rates and dental injury rates were compared between devices. RESULTS: Total tracheal intubation time using the Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope, and fiberoptic bronchoscope was 13.3 (range, 11.1 to 20.1), 14.9 (range, 12.7 to 22.3), and 19.4 seconds (range, 14.1 to 32.5), respectively. Total tracheal intubation time differed significantly among the devices (P=0.009). Success rates for the Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope, and fiberoptic bronchoscope were 98%, 96%, and 100%, respectively, and dental injury rates were 5%, 19%, and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The fiberoptic bronchoscope required longer intubation times than the other devices. However, this device had the best success rate with the least incidence of dental injury. The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2015-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5052909/ /pubmed/27752604 http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.15.043 Text en Copyright © 2015 The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Ko, Jung-In Ha, Sang Ook Koo, Min Seok Kwon, Miyoung Kim, Jieun Jeon, Jin Park, So Hee Shim, Sangwoo Chang, Youjin Park, Taejin Comparison of intubation times using a manikin with an immobilized cervical spine: Macintosh laryngoscope vs. GlideScope vs. fiberoptic bronchoscope |
title | Comparison of intubation times using a manikin with an immobilized cervical spine: Macintosh laryngoscope vs. GlideScope vs. fiberoptic bronchoscope |
title_full | Comparison of intubation times using a manikin with an immobilized cervical spine: Macintosh laryngoscope vs. GlideScope vs. fiberoptic bronchoscope |
title_fullStr | Comparison of intubation times using a manikin with an immobilized cervical spine: Macintosh laryngoscope vs. GlideScope vs. fiberoptic bronchoscope |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of intubation times using a manikin with an immobilized cervical spine: Macintosh laryngoscope vs. GlideScope vs. fiberoptic bronchoscope |
title_short | Comparison of intubation times using a manikin with an immobilized cervical spine: Macintosh laryngoscope vs. GlideScope vs. fiberoptic bronchoscope |
title_sort | comparison of intubation times using a manikin with an immobilized cervical spine: macintosh laryngoscope vs. glidescope vs. fiberoptic bronchoscope |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052909/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27752604 http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.15.043 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kojungin comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope AT hasangook comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope AT koominseok comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope AT kwonmiyoung comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope AT kimjieun comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope AT jeonjin comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope AT parksohee comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope AT shimsangwoo comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope AT changyoujin comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope AT parktaejin comparisonofintubationtimesusingamanikinwithanimmobilizedcervicalspinemacintoshlaryngoscopevsglidescopevsfiberopticbronchoscope |