Cargando…

Efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, Pentax Airway Scope and GlideScope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: a randomised cross-over simulation study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of direct laryngoscopy (DL), Pentax Airway Scope (PAWS) and GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) systems for endotracheal intubation (ETI) in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: manual in-line stabilisation (MILS), Philadelphia neck collar (PNC) (moderate lim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Jong Won, Lee, Kyeong Ryong, Hong, Dae Young, Baek, Kwang Je, Lee, Young Hwan, Park, Sang O
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093373/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27797983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011089
_version_ 1782464906438639616
author Kim, Jong Won
Lee, Kyeong Ryong
Hong, Dae Young
Baek, Kwang Je
Lee, Young Hwan
Park, Sang O
author_facet Kim, Jong Won
Lee, Kyeong Ryong
Hong, Dae Young
Baek, Kwang Je
Lee, Young Hwan
Park, Sang O
author_sort Kim, Jong Won
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of direct laryngoscopy (DL), Pentax Airway Scope (PAWS) and GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) systems for endotracheal intubation (ETI) in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: manual in-line stabilisation (MILS), Philadelphia neck collar (PNC) (moderate limit of mouth opening) and Stifneck collar (SNC) (severe limit of mouth opening). DESIGN: Randomised cross-over simulation study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 35 physicians who had >30 successful ETI experiences at a tertiary hospital in Seoul, Korea. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants performed ETI using PAWS, GVL and DL randomly in simulated MILS, PNC and SNC scenarios in our simulation centre. The end points were successful ETI and the time to complete ETI. In addition, modified Cormack-Lehane (CL) classification and pressure to teeth were recorded. RESULTS: In MILS, there were no significant differences in the rate of success of ETI between the three devices: 33/35(94.3%) for DL vs 32/35(91.4%) for GVL vs 35/35(100.0%) for PAWS; p=0.230). PAWS achieved successful ETI more quickly (19.8 s) than DL (29.6 s) and GVL (35.4 s). For the PNC scenario, a higher rate of successful ETI was achieved with GVL 33/35 (94.3%) than PAWS 29/35 (82.9%) or DL 25/35 (71.4%) (p=0.040). For the SNC scenario, a higher rate of successful ETI was achieved with GVL 28/35(80.0%) than with DL 14/35(40.0%) and PAWS 7/35(20.0%) (p<0.001). For the PNC and SNC scenarios, GVL provided a relatively good view of the glottis, but a frequent pressure to teeth occurred. CONCLUSIONS: All three devices are suitable for ETI in MILS. DL is not suitable in both neck collar scenarios. PAWS showed faster intubations in MILS, but was not suitable in the SNC scenario. GVL is most suitable in all cervical immobilisation scenarios, but may cause pressure to teeth more frequently.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5093373
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50933732016-11-14 Efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, Pentax Airway Scope and GlideScope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: a randomised cross-over simulation study Kim, Jong Won Lee, Kyeong Ryong Hong, Dae Young Baek, Kwang Je Lee, Young Hwan Park, Sang O BMJ Open Emergency Medicine OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of direct laryngoscopy (DL), Pentax Airway Scope (PAWS) and GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) systems for endotracheal intubation (ETI) in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: manual in-line stabilisation (MILS), Philadelphia neck collar (PNC) (moderate limit of mouth opening) and Stifneck collar (SNC) (severe limit of mouth opening). DESIGN: Randomised cross-over simulation study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 35 physicians who had >30 successful ETI experiences at a tertiary hospital in Seoul, Korea. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants performed ETI using PAWS, GVL and DL randomly in simulated MILS, PNC and SNC scenarios in our simulation centre. The end points were successful ETI and the time to complete ETI. In addition, modified Cormack-Lehane (CL) classification and pressure to teeth were recorded. RESULTS: In MILS, there were no significant differences in the rate of success of ETI between the three devices: 33/35(94.3%) for DL vs 32/35(91.4%) for GVL vs 35/35(100.0%) for PAWS; p=0.230). PAWS achieved successful ETI more quickly (19.8 s) than DL (29.6 s) and GVL (35.4 s). For the PNC scenario, a higher rate of successful ETI was achieved with GVL 33/35 (94.3%) than PAWS 29/35 (82.9%) or DL 25/35 (71.4%) (p=0.040). For the SNC scenario, a higher rate of successful ETI was achieved with GVL 28/35(80.0%) than with DL 14/35(40.0%) and PAWS 7/35(20.0%) (p<0.001). For the PNC and SNC scenarios, GVL provided a relatively good view of the glottis, but a frequent pressure to teeth occurred. CONCLUSIONS: All three devices are suitable for ETI in MILS. DL is not suitable in both neck collar scenarios. PAWS showed faster intubations in MILS, but was not suitable in the SNC scenario. GVL is most suitable in all cervical immobilisation scenarios, but may cause pressure to teeth more frequently. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5093373/ /pubmed/27797983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011089 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Emergency Medicine
Kim, Jong Won
Lee, Kyeong Ryong
Hong, Dae Young
Baek, Kwang Je
Lee, Young Hwan
Park, Sang O
Efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, Pentax Airway Scope and GlideScope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: a randomised cross-over simulation study
title Efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, Pentax Airway Scope and GlideScope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: a randomised cross-over simulation study
title_full Efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, Pentax Airway Scope and GlideScope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: a randomised cross-over simulation study
title_fullStr Efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, Pentax Airway Scope and GlideScope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: a randomised cross-over simulation study
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, Pentax Airway Scope and GlideScope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: a randomised cross-over simulation study
title_short Efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, Pentax Airway Scope and GlideScope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: a randomised cross-over simulation study
title_sort efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, pentax airway scope and glidescope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: a randomised cross-over simulation study
topic Emergency Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093373/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27797983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011089
work_keys_str_mv AT kimjongwon efficacyofvarioustypesoflaryngoscopedirectpentaxairwayscopeandglidescopeforendotrachealintubationinvariouscervicalimmobilisationscenariosarandomisedcrossoversimulationstudy
AT leekyeongryong efficacyofvarioustypesoflaryngoscopedirectpentaxairwayscopeandglidescopeforendotrachealintubationinvariouscervicalimmobilisationscenariosarandomisedcrossoversimulationstudy
AT hongdaeyoung efficacyofvarioustypesoflaryngoscopedirectpentaxairwayscopeandglidescopeforendotrachealintubationinvariouscervicalimmobilisationscenariosarandomisedcrossoversimulationstudy
AT baekkwangje efficacyofvarioustypesoflaryngoscopedirectpentaxairwayscopeandglidescopeforendotrachealintubationinvariouscervicalimmobilisationscenariosarandomisedcrossoversimulationstudy
AT leeyounghwan efficacyofvarioustypesoflaryngoscopedirectpentaxairwayscopeandglidescopeforendotrachealintubationinvariouscervicalimmobilisationscenariosarandomisedcrossoversimulationstudy
AT parksango efficacyofvarioustypesoflaryngoscopedirectpentaxairwayscopeandglidescopeforendotrachealintubationinvariouscervicalimmobilisationscenariosarandomisedcrossoversimulationstudy