Comparing the performance of traditional direct laryngoscope with three indirect laryngoscopes: A prospective manikin study in normal and difficult airway scenarios

Jiann Ruey Ong, Chee Fah Chong, Chien Chih Chen, Zong-Lun Wang, Chiu Mei Lin, Shi Chuan Chang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of three indirect laryngoscopes, Truview EVO2 laryngoscope, Clarus Levitan fiberoptic stylet and AirwayScope AWS, in comparison with direct Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) when performed in normal and difficult airway scenarios. Methods: This prospective comparative study recruited 30 emergency physicians familiar with direct laryngoscopic intubation. Intubations were performed on manikin and were repeated twice for both scenarios. The primary end points were intubation time and rate of failed intubation. Glottis visualization was graded on Cormack and Lehane score and VAS. Results: In normal airway scenario: AWS had shortest intubation time (6.0s) followed by ML (8.7s); VAS score of ML and AWS was lower (easier to use) than the other two devices; Cormack and Lehane score was similar for all devices. In difficult airway scenario: AWS had shortest intubation time (5.9s); VAS score of AWS was lower than the other three devices; TVL, FOS, AWS had better Cormack and Lehane score than ML. Intubation time, rate of failed intubation, and Cormack and Lehane score were similar between attempts in both scenarios. Learning effect was significant in FOS in both scenarios and in TVL in normal airway scenario. Conclusions: AWS performed best in normal and difficult airways. ML performed better than TVL and FOS in normal airways. Performances of ML, TVL and FOS were similar in difficult airways. Skills with AWS could be mastered rapidly. TVL and FOS required more practice to gain expertise.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)606-614
Number of pages9
JournalEMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia
Volume23
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Manikins
Laryngoscopes
Intubation
Prospective Studies
Equipment and Supplies
Glottis
Emergencies
Learning
Physicians

Keywords

  • Emergency medicine
  • Intratracheal
  • Intubation
  • Laryngoscopy
  • Neck injury

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Comparing the performance of traditional direct laryngoscope with three indirect laryngoscopes : A prospective manikin study in normal and difficult airway scenarios. / Ong, Jiann Ruey; Chong, Chee Fah; Chen, Chien Chih; Wang, Zong-Lun; Lin, Chiu Mei; Chang, Shi Chuan.

In: EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, Vol. 23, No. 5, 10.2011, p. 606-614.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ong, Jiann Ruey ; Chong, Chee Fah ; Chen, Chien Chih ; Wang, Zong-Lun ; Lin, Chiu Mei ; Chang, Shi Chuan. / Comparing the performance of traditional direct laryngoscope with three indirect laryngoscopes : A prospective manikin study in normal and difficult airway scenarios. In: EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2011 ; Vol. 23, No. 5. pp. 606-614.
@article{43b1fc9adeb34b6a8a31464c729d0f1d,
title = "Comparing the performance of traditional direct laryngoscope with three indirect laryngoscopes: A prospective manikin study in normal and difficult airway scenarios",
abstract = "Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of three indirect laryngoscopes, Truview EVO2 laryngoscope, Clarus Levitan fiberoptic stylet and AirwayScope AWS, in comparison with direct Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) when performed in normal and difficult airway scenarios. Methods: This prospective comparative study recruited 30 emergency physicians familiar with direct laryngoscopic intubation. Intubations were performed on manikin and were repeated twice for both scenarios. The primary end points were intubation time and rate of failed intubation. Glottis visualization was graded on Cormack and Lehane score and VAS. Results: In normal airway scenario: AWS had shortest intubation time (6.0s) followed by ML (8.7s); VAS score of ML and AWS was lower (easier to use) than the other two devices; Cormack and Lehane score was similar for all devices. In difficult airway scenario: AWS had shortest intubation time (5.9s); VAS score of AWS was lower than the other three devices; TVL, FOS, AWS had better Cormack and Lehane score than ML. Intubation time, rate of failed intubation, and Cormack and Lehane score were similar between attempts in both scenarios. Learning effect was significant in FOS in both scenarios and in TVL in normal airway scenario. Conclusions: AWS performed best in normal and difficult airways. ML performed better than TVL and FOS in normal airways. Performances of ML, TVL and FOS were similar in difficult airways. Skills with AWS could be mastered rapidly. TVL and FOS required more practice to gain expertise.",
keywords = "Emergency medicine, Intratracheal, Intubation, Laryngoscopy, Neck injury",
author = "Ong, {Jiann Ruey} and Chong, {Chee Fah} and Chen, {Chien Chih} and Zong-Lun Wang and Lin, {Chiu Mei} and Chang, {Shi Chuan}",
year = "2011",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/j.1742-6723.2011.01441.x",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "606--614",
journal = "EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia",
issn = "1742-6731",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing the performance of traditional direct laryngoscope with three indirect laryngoscopes

T2 - A prospective manikin study in normal and difficult airway scenarios

AU - Ong, Jiann Ruey

AU - Chong, Chee Fah

AU - Chen, Chien Chih

AU - Wang, Zong-Lun

AU - Lin, Chiu Mei

AU - Chang, Shi Chuan

PY - 2011/10

Y1 - 2011/10

N2 - Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of three indirect laryngoscopes, Truview EVO2 laryngoscope, Clarus Levitan fiberoptic stylet and AirwayScope AWS, in comparison with direct Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) when performed in normal and difficult airway scenarios. Methods: This prospective comparative study recruited 30 emergency physicians familiar with direct laryngoscopic intubation. Intubations were performed on manikin and were repeated twice for both scenarios. The primary end points were intubation time and rate of failed intubation. Glottis visualization was graded on Cormack and Lehane score and VAS. Results: In normal airway scenario: AWS had shortest intubation time (6.0s) followed by ML (8.7s); VAS score of ML and AWS was lower (easier to use) than the other two devices; Cormack and Lehane score was similar for all devices. In difficult airway scenario: AWS had shortest intubation time (5.9s); VAS score of AWS was lower than the other three devices; TVL, FOS, AWS had better Cormack and Lehane score than ML. Intubation time, rate of failed intubation, and Cormack and Lehane score were similar between attempts in both scenarios. Learning effect was significant in FOS in both scenarios and in TVL in normal airway scenario. Conclusions: AWS performed best in normal and difficult airways. ML performed better than TVL and FOS in normal airways. Performances of ML, TVL and FOS were similar in difficult airways. Skills with AWS could be mastered rapidly. TVL and FOS required more practice to gain expertise.

AB - Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of three indirect laryngoscopes, Truview EVO2 laryngoscope, Clarus Levitan fiberoptic stylet and AirwayScope AWS, in comparison with direct Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) when performed in normal and difficult airway scenarios. Methods: This prospective comparative study recruited 30 emergency physicians familiar with direct laryngoscopic intubation. Intubations were performed on manikin and were repeated twice for both scenarios. The primary end points were intubation time and rate of failed intubation. Glottis visualization was graded on Cormack and Lehane score and VAS. Results: In normal airway scenario: AWS had shortest intubation time (6.0s) followed by ML (8.7s); VAS score of ML and AWS was lower (easier to use) than the other two devices; Cormack and Lehane score was similar for all devices. In difficult airway scenario: AWS had shortest intubation time (5.9s); VAS score of AWS was lower than the other three devices; TVL, FOS, AWS had better Cormack and Lehane score than ML. Intubation time, rate of failed intubation, and Cormack and Lehane score were similar between attempts in both scenarios. Learning effect was significant in FOS in both scenarios and in TVL in normal airway scenario. Conclusions: AWS performed best in normal and difficult airways. ML performed better than TVL and FOS in normal airways. Performances of ML, TVL and FOS were similar in difficult airways. Skills with AWS could be mastered rapidly. TVL and FOS required more practice to gain expertise.

KW - Emergency medicine

KW - Intratracheal

KW - Intubation

KW - Laryngoscopy

KW - Neck injury

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80054089617&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80054089617&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2011.01441.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2011.01441.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 21995476

AN - SCOPUS:80054089617

VL - 23

SP - 606

EP - 614

JO - EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia

JF - EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia

SN - 1742-6731

IS - 5

ER -