T Miki1, G Inagawa, T Kikuchi, Y Koyama, T Goto. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Yokohama City University, School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The Airway Scope (AWS) is a new video laryngoscope. The purpose of this study was to compare the AWS and Macintosh laryngoscopes with regard to their usefulness for beginners in tracheal intubation. METHODS: Thirty-one nurses with no previous experience of tracheal intubation used each device 10 times to intubate the trachea of a manikin (Laerdal Airway Managemant Trainer, Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway). Intubation correctly completed within 30 s was regarded as successful. The intubation time, success rate, number of esophageal intubations and dental clicks, and subjective evaluation of difficulty of intubation [rated from 1 (extremely easy) to 5 (extremely difficult)] were recorded. RESULTS: The average intubation time was significantly shorter for AWS than for the Macintosh laryngoscope (16.7 +/- 11.0 s vs. 23.2 +/- 24.9 s; mean +/- standard deviation; P = 0.0297), and the success rate with AWS was significantly greater (91.3% vs. 79.4%; P < 0.001). In the total of 310 intubation attempts for each device, the number of esophageal intubations (0/310 with AWS vs. 20/310 with the Macintosh laryngoscope) and dental clicks (0/310 with AWS vs. 40/310 with the Macintosh laryngoscope) differed significantly (P < 0.001). AWS was rated as easier to use than the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AWS is more useful for beginners as it provides quicker and easier tracheal intubation.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The Airway Scope (AWS) is a new video laryngoscope. The purpose of this study was to compare the AWS and Macintosh laryngoscopes with regard to their usefulness for beginners in tracheal intubation. METHODS: Thirty-one nurses with no previous experience of tracheal intubation used each device 10 times to intubate the trachea of a manikin (Laerdal Airway Managemant Trainer, Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway). Intubation correctly completed within 30 s was regarded as successful. The intubation time, success rate, number of esophageal intubations and dental clicks, and subjective evaluation of difficulty of intubation [rated from 1 (extremely easy) to 5 (extremely difficult)] were recorded. RESULTS: The average intubation time was significantly shorter for AWS than for the Macintosh laryngoscope (16.7 +/- 11.0 s vs. 23.2 +/- 24.9 s; mean +/- standard deviation; P = 0.0297), and the success rate with AWS was significantly greater (91.3% vs. 79.4%; P < 0.001). In the total of 310 intubation attempts for each device, the number of esophageal intubations (0/310 with AWS vs. 20/310 with the Macintosh laryngoscope) and dental clicks (0/310 with AWS vs. 40/310 with the Macintosh laryngoscope) differed significantly (P < 0.001). AWS was rated as easier to use than the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:AWS is more useful for beginners as it provides quicker and easier tracheal intubation.