European journal of medical research · 2017
Improved success rates using videolaryngoscopy in unexperienced users: a randomized crossover study in airway manikins.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eismann Hendrik, Sieg Lion, Etti Nicola, Friedrich Lars, Schröter Christian, Mommsen Philipp, Krettek Christian, Zeckey Christian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Videolaryngoscopy has been proven to be a safe procedure managing difficult airways in the hands of airway specialists. Information about the success rates in unexperienced users of videolaryngoscopy compared to conventional laryngoscopy is sparse. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate if there might be more success in securing an airway if the unexperienced provider is using a videolaryngoscope in simulated airways in a randomized manikin study. Differences between commonly used videolaryngoscopes were elucidated.
METHODS: A standardized hands-on workshop prior to the study was performed. For direct laryngoscopy (DL) we used a Macintosh laryngoscope, whereas for videolaryngoscopy (VL) we used the cMac, the dBlade, and a King Vision videolaryngoscope. Endotracheal intubations in three simulated normal and difficult airways were performed. Main outcome parameters were time to view and time to intubation. Cormack and Lehane (C + L) classification and the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score were evaluated. After every intubation, the participants were asked to review the airway and the device used.
RESULTS: 22 participants (14.8 ± 4.0 intubations per year, mostly trauma surgeons) with limited experience in videolaryngoscopy (mean total number of videolaryngoscopy .4 ± .2) were enrolled. We found improved C + L grades with VL in contrast to DL. We saw similar data with respect to the POGO score, where the participants achieved better visibility of the glottis with VL. The hyperangulated blade geometries of videolaryngoscopes provided a better visibility in difficult airways than the standard geometry of the Macintosh-type blade. The subjective performance of the VL devices was better in more difficult airway scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: After a short introduction and hands-on training, a videolaryngoscope seems to be safe and usable by unexperienced providers. We assume a standard geometry laryngoscope is optimal for a patient with normal anatomy, whereas VL device with a hyperangulated blade is ideal for difficult airway situations with limited mouth opening or restricted neck movement.
METHODS: A standardized hands-on workshop prior to the study was performed. For direct laryngoscopy (DL) we used a Macintosh laryngoscope, whereas for videolaryngoscopy (VL) we used the cMac, the dBlade, and a King Vision videolaryngoscope. Endotracheal intubations in three simulated normal and difficult airways were performed. Main outcome parameters were time to view and time to intubation. Cormack and Lehane (C + L) classification and the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score were evaluated. After every intubation, the participants were asked to review the airway and the device used.
RESULTS: 22 participants (14.8 ± 4.0 intubations per year, mostly trauma surgeons) with limited experience in videolaryngoscopy (mean total number of videolaryngoscopy .4 ± .2) were enrolled. We found improved C + L grades with VL in contrast to DL. We saw similar data with respect to the POGO score, where the participants achieved better visibility of the glottis with VL. The hyperangulated blade geometries of videolaryngoscopes provided a better visibility in difficult airways than the standard geometry of the Macintosh-type blade. The subjective performance of the VL devices was better in more difficult airway scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: After a short introduction and hands-on training, a videolaryngoscope seems to be safe and usable by unexperienced providers. We assume a standard geometry laryngoscope is optimal for a patient with normal anatomy, whereas VL device with a hyperangulated blade is ideal for difficult airway situations with limited mouth opening or restricted neck movement.