BACKGROUND: The video intubating laryngoscope (VIL) can share information with co-workers, that otherwise only one probationer could obtain. Tracheal intubation was reviewed using recorded videotapes via VIL. It was supposed that the esophageal changes by laryngoscope might cause esophageal intubation. In this study, we investigated the impressions about the changed esophagus caused by laryngoscope, and our purpose is to find better educational method for tracheal intubation. METHODS: We randomly selected 21 first year junior residents for inexperienced group and 12 expert anesthesiologists for expert group, respectively. They were asked one questionnaire; "What do you think of it?" about three snapshots (A, B, C) recorded by VIL. Each answer was compared in both groups. RESULTS: The percentage of correct answers to snapshot A were 19% and 50% (P = 0.065) in inexperienced group and expert group; snapshot B, 14% and 50% (P = 0.026); and snapshot C, 14% and 92% (P < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It was clarified that probationers significantly more often recognized the changed esophagus as the glottis opening. It is very important for us to teach and emphasize those points when we instruct the inexperienced in tracheal intubation.
BACKGROUND: The video intubating laryngoscope (VIL) can share information with co-workers, that otherwise only one probationer could obtain. Tracheal intubation was reviewed using recorded videotapes via VIL. It was supposed that the esophageal changes by laryngoscope might cause esophageal intubation. In this study, we investigated the impressions about the changed esophagus caused by laryngoscope, and our purpose is to find better educational method for tracheal intubation. METHODS: We randomly selected 21 first year junior residents for inexperienced group and 12 expert anesthesiologists for expert group, respectively. They were asked one questionnaire; "What do you think of it?" about three snapshots (A, B, C) recorded by VIL. Each answer was compared in both groups. RESULTS: The percentage of correct answers to snapshot A were 19% and 50% (P = 0.065) in inexperienced group and expert group; snapshot B, 14% and 50% (P = 0.026); and snapshot C, 14% and 92% (P < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It was clarified that probationers significantly more often recognized the changed esophagus as the glottis opening. It is very important for us to teach and emphasize those points when we instruct the inexperienced in tracheal intubation.