Literature DB >> 21237552

A comparison of paediatric airway anatomy with the SimBaby high-fidelity patient simulator.

Karl Schebesta1, Michael Hüpfl, Helmut Ringl, Anette-Marie Machata, Astrid Chiari, Oliver Kimberger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The SimBaby high-fidelity patient simulator is a widely used paediatric simulator for the training of standard and critical airway management scenarios. Furthermore this simulator is frequently used for the evaluation of different airway devices and techniques. However, the anatomic structures of the SimBaby have not been compared to actual patients' anatomy.
METHODS: The CT radiographic measures of the upper airway anatomy of two SimBaby simulators were compared to MRI images of the upper airway of 20 children aged 1-11 months who underwent routine MRI scans under sedation for diagnostic purposes. Various distances of the tongue, soft palate and pharynx, cross sectional areas and volumes of anatomic structures of the upper airway including the retroglossal airspace were compared.
RESULTS: The SimBaby's retroglossal airspace volume greatly differed from the measurements in patients (SimBaby 5.3±0.4 vs. 1.9±0.8 cm(3) in infants, p<0.01). Furthermore the distance from the alveolar process of the mandible to the posterior pharyngeal wall was larger in the SimBaby than in infants (5.8±0.1 vs. 4.5±0.5 cm, p<0.001) and dimensions of the epiglottis and pharynx were larger in the Simbaby.
CONCLUSION: The anatomic features of the SimBaby do not adequately simulate the upper airway anatomy of infants. These results imply inadequate realism of this simulator for airway training and compromise the validity of comparative trials of different airway devices with the SimBaby as airway model.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21237552     DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  8 in total

1.  Neonatal airway simulators, how good are they? A comparative study of physical and functional fidelity.

Authors:  T Sawyer; T P Strandjord; K Johnson; D Low
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 2.521

2.  Comparison of intubation performance between the King Vision and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice personnel: a randomized, crossover manikin study.

Authors:  Yuki Akihisa; Koichi Maruyama; Yukihide Koyama; Rieko Yamada; Akira Ogura; Tomio Andoh
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2013-06-30       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 3.  The role of simulation in teaching pediatric resuscitation: current perspectives.

Authors:  Yiqun Lin; Adam Cheng
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2015-03-31

4.  A comparison of two hyperangulated video laryngoscope blades to direct laryngoscopy in a simulated infant airway: a bicentric, comparative, randomized manikin study.

Authors:  Marc Kriege; Nina Pirlich; Thomas Ott; Eva Wittenmeier; Frank Dette
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  Skill Proficiency is Predicted by Intubation Frequency of Emergency Medicine Attending Physicians.

Authors:  Brian Gillett; David Saloum; Amish Aghera; John P Marshall
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2019-07-02

6.  Intubating extremely premature newborns: a randomised crossover simulation study.

Authors:  Joseph O'Connell; Gary Weiner
Journal:  BMJ Paediatr Open       Date:  2017-09-05

Review 7.  Simulation in Neonatal Resuscitation.

Authors:  Aisling A Garvey; Eugene M Dempsey
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 3.418

8.  A Novel 3-Dimensional Printing Fabrication Approach for the Production of Pediatric Airway Models.

Authors:  Andrew D Weatherall; Matthew D Rogerson; Michelle R Quayle; Michael G Cooper; Paul G McMenamin; Justin W Adams
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 6.627

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.