Comparison of the Macintosh Laryngoscope and the GlideScope Video Laryngoscope in a Cadaver Model of Foreign Body Airway Obstruction.
- Author:
Yoon Joon KIM
1
;
Dong Ryul KO
;
June Young LEE
;
Sang Mo JE
;
Tae Nyoung CHUNG
;
Hyun Soo CHUNG
;
Sung Phil CHUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hsc104@yuhs.ac
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Foreign bodies;
Airway obstruction;
Laryngoscopes;
Cadaver
- MeSH:
Airway Obstruction;
Cadaver;
Foreign Bodies;
Health Personnel;
Humans;
Immobilization;
Laryngoscopes;
Spine;
Surgical Instruments
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
2010;21(6):783-787
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The GlideScope video laryngoscope (GL) has been known to help inexperienced health care providers become able to manage even difficult airways. The purpose of this study was to compare foreign body removal efficacies between the Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) and the GL in a setting of airway obstruction. METHODS: Participants were asked to remove the simulated foreign body (2x2 cm rice cake) from the supraglottic area of a freshly embalmed cadaver. This simulated a normal airway and a difficult airway with cervical spine immobilization. Participants performed the removal maneuver 4 times in random order using a Magill forceps with both the ML and the GL. We measured the time to removal (sec) and preference of the participant (5-point scale) and compared results according to the type of laryngoscope. Successful removal was defined as a removal time that was less than 120 sec. RESULTS: Forty participants were enrolled in this simulation experiment. The success rate, time to removal and provider preference were not significantly different betweeh the two types of laryngoscope. In subgroup analysis for experienced providers, the time to removal was significantly shorter in the ML group than the GL group (14 vs 20 sec, p<0.05). The preference of experienced provider was also significantly higher for ML than GL. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that ML has comparable efficacy for foreign body removal to GL and is acceptable to experienced providers.
