Comparison of the Macintosh Laryngoscope and the GlideScope(R) Video Laryngoscope in Easy and Simulated Difficult Airway Scenarios: A Manikin Study.
- Author:
Jong Won SI
1
;
Sam Beom LEE
;
Byung Soo DO
Author Information
1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. sblee@med.yu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Endotracheal intubation;
Manikin;
Laryngoscope
- MeSH:
Edema;
Epiglottis;
Female;
Humans;
Intubation;
Intubation, Intratracheal;
Laryngoscopes;
Male;
Manikins;
Students, Medical;
Tongue
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
2009;20(6):604-608
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare the usefulness of Macintosh laryngoscope with GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope in five airway scenarios on Simman(R) manikin. METHODS: Forty medical students, 20 males and 20 females, were enrolled and performed endotracheal intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope and GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope in five airway scenarios: normal airway, cervical rigidity, tongue edema, pharyngeal obstruction and combined tongue edema with pharyngeal obstruction. We studied the laryngeal view, ease of intubation, time for intubation, success rate and number of attempts in the five airway scenarios. RESULTS: VAS for the ease of intubation showed that intubation with GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope was easier than intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope in each scenario except the cervical rigidity scenario (p<0.05). The laryngeal view with GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope was better than that with Macintosh laryngoscope in each scenario except the pharyngeal obstruction scenario (p<0.05). The time for visualizing epiglottis with Macintosh laryngoscope was shorter than with GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope except the tongue edema and pharyngeal obstruction scenario (p<0.05). The time from visualizing epiglottis to insertion of endotracheal tube with Macintosh laryngoscope was shorter than with GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope except the tongue edema and combined scenario (p<0.05). The total time for endotracheal intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope was shorter than with GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope except the tongue edema scenario (p<0.05). The success rate with GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope was higher than with Macintosh laryngoscope in the tongue edema and combined scenario (p<0.05). There was no statistical significance for the number of attempts between GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope. CONCLUSION: Endotracheal intubation with GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope had better results than with Macintosh laryngoscope in most scenarios. Endotracheal intubation with GlideScope(R) video laryngoscope promises to be a useful device for non-skilled personnel.
