BACKGROUND: The Bullard laryngoscope is useful for the management of a variety of airway management scenarios. Without the aid of a video system, teaching laryngoscopy skills occurs with indirect feedback to the instructor. The purpose of this study was to determine if use of a video system would speed the process of learning the Bullard laryngoscope or improve the performance (speed or success) of its use. METHODS:Thirty-six anesthesia providers with no previous Bullard laryngoscope experience were randomly divided into two groups: initial training (first 15 intubations) with looking directly through the eyepiece (n = 20), or with the display of the scope on a video monitor (n = 16). The subjects each then performed 15 Bullard intubations by looking directly through the eyepiece. RESULTS: There was not an overall significant difference in laryngoscopy or intubation times between the groups. When only the first 15 intubations were considered, the laryngoscopy time was shorter in the video group (26 +/- 24) than in the nonvideo group (32 +/- 34; P< 0.04). In the first 15 patients, there were fewer single attempts at intubation (67.9% vs 80.3%; P< 0.002) and more failed intubations (17.2% vs 6.0%; P< 0.0001) in the nonvideo group. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the authors have shown that use of a video camera decreases time for laryngoscopic view and improves success rate when the Bullard laryngoscope is first being taught to experienced clinicians. However, these benefits are not evident as more experience with the Bullard laryngoscope is achieved, such that no difference in skill with the Bullard laryngoscope is discernible after 15 intubations whether a video system was used to teach this technique.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Bullard laryngoscope is useful for the management of a variety of airway management scenarios. Without the aid of a video system, teaching laryngoscopy skills occurs with indirect feedback to the instructor. The purpose of this study was to determine if use of a video system would speed the process of learning the Bullard laryngoscope or improve the performance (speed or success) of its use. METHODS: Thirty-six anesthesia providers with no previous Bullard laryngoscope experience were randomly divided into two groups: initial training (first 15 intubations) with looking directly through the eyepiece (n = 20), or with the display of the scope on a video monitor (n = 16). The subjects each then performed 15 Bullard intubations by looking directly through the eyepiece. RESULTS: There was not an overall significant difference in laryngoscopy or intubation times between the groups. When only the first 15 intubations were considered, the laryngoscopy time was shorter in the video group (26 +/- 24) than in the nonvideo group (32 +/- 34; P< 0.04). In the first 15 patients, there were fewer single attempts at intubation (67.9% vs 80.3%; P< 0.002) and more failed intubations (17.2% vs 6.0%; P< 0.0001) in the nonvideo group. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the authors have shown that use of a video camera decreases time for laryngoscopic view and improves success rate when the Bullard laryngoscope is first being taught to experienced clinicians. However, these benefits are not evident as more experience with the Bullard laryngoscope is achieved, such that no difference in skill with the Bullard laryngoscope is discernible after 15 intubations whether a video system was used to teach this technique.