Evaluation of the Effect of Intubation Box use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision® and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital.

BACKGROUND

The procedures of introducing an airway by intubation are associated with increased risk of aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2 virus, posing a high risk to the personnel involved. Newer and novel methods such as the intubation box have been developed to increase the safety of healthcare workers during intubation.

METHODS

DESIGN

In this study, 33 anaesthesiologist and critical care specialists intubated the trachea of the airway manikin (US Laerdal Medical AS™) 4 times using a King Vision® videolaryngoscope and TRUVIEW PCD™ videolaryngoscope (with and without an intubation box as described by Lai). Intubation time was primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were first-pass intubation success rate, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score and peak force to maxillary incisors.

RESULTS

Intubation time and the number of times a click was heard during tracheal intubation were considerably higher in both groups when an intubation box was used (Table 1). When comparing the two laryngoscopes, the King Vision® videolaryngoscope enabled much less time to intubate than did the TRUVIEW laryngoscope, both with and without the intubation box. (P<0.001) In both laryngoscope groups, first-pass successful intubation was higher without the intubation box, although the difference was statistically insignificant. POGO score was not affected by intubation box but a higher score was observed with King Vision® laryngoscope (Tables 1,2).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that use of an intubation box makes intubation difficult and increases the time needed to perform it. King Vision® videolaryngoscope results in lesser intubation time and better glottic view as compared to TRUVIEW laryngoscope.