PURPOSE: The King Vision laryngoscope is a newly developed video laryngoscope. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the efficacy of the King Vision in novice personnel. METHODS:Thirty-one registered nurses with no previous experience with tracheal intubation were enrolled. Participants made 6 consecutive attempts at intubation of the manikin's trachea with a Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) and the King Vision with channeled blade (KVC) and non-channeled blade (KVNC) in a randomized cross-over fashion. The Grading Scale of Intubation Difficulty (GSID) was rated on a 5-point scale. RESULTS:Overall median (range) intubation times (sec) were 16.9 (8.0-60.0) with the MAC, 20.5 (7.2-60.0) with the KVC, and 60.0 (11.0-60.0) with the KVNC. The KVNC required significantly longer intubation time compared with the MAC or the KVC (p < 0.001). Success rate with the KVNC was 47.3 %, which was significantly inferior to that with the MAC (91.4 %) or KVC (86.6 %). Median GSID was 2 (range 1-5) with the KVC and 3 (1-4) with the MAC, which were both significantly lower than the 4 (2-5) with the KVNC (p < 0.001). Esophageal intubation with the MAC occurred in 18 of 186 attempts, whereas no incidents of esophageal intubation occurred with the KVC or KVNC. CONCLUSION: The KVC facilitated intubation by novice personnel without incidence of esophageal intubation. However, intubation times, success rates, and GSID scores were similar to the values obtained with the MAC. These findings suggest that the KVC, but not the KVNC, could be used as an alternative device for intubation by novice personnel.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The King Vision laryngoscope is a newly developed video laryngoscope. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the efficacy of the King Vision in novice personnel. METHODS: Thirty-one registered nurses with no previous experience with tracheal intubation were enrolled. Participants made 6 consecutive attempts at intubation of the manikin's trachea with a Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) and the King Vision with channeled blade (KVC) and non-channeled blade (KVNC) in a randomized cross-over fashion. The Grading Scale of Intubation Difficulty (GSID) was rated on a 5-point scale. RESULTS: Overall median (range) intubation times (sec) were 16.9 (8.0-60.0) with the MAC, 20.5 (7.2-60.0) with the KVC, and 60.0 (11.0-60.0) with the KVNC. The KVNC required significantly longer intubation time compared with the MAC or the KVC (p < 0.001). Success rate with the KVNC was 47.3 %, which was significantly inferior to that with the MAC (91.4 %) or KVC (86.6 %). Median GSID was 2 (range 1-5) with the KVC and 3 (1-4) with the MAC, which were both significantly lower than the 4 (2-5) with the KVNC (p < 0.001). Esophageal intubation with the MAC occurred in 18 of 186 attempts, whereas no incidents of esophageal intubation occurred with the KVC or KVNC. CONCLUSION: The KVC facilitated intubation by novice personnel without incidence of esophageal intubation. However, intubation times, success rates, and GSID scores were similar to the values obtained with the MAC. These findings suggest that the KVC, but not the KVNC, could be used as an alternative device for intubation by novice personnel.
Authors: Julian T Mulcaster; Joanna Mills; Orlando R Hung; Kirk MacQuarrie; J Adam Law; Saul Pytka; David Imrie; Chris Field Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Szilárd Rendeki; Dóra Keresztes; Gábor Woth; Ákos Mérei; Martin Rozanovic; Mátyás Rendeki; József Farkas; Diána Mühl; Bálint Nagy Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Anto Sahaya Priyanka; Kusha Nag; V R Hemanth Kumar; Dewan Roshan Singh; Senthil Kumar; T Sivashanmugam Journal: Anesth Essays Res Date: 2017 Jan-Mar
Authors: Dhanyasi Shravanalakshmi; Prasanna U Bidkar; K Narmadalakshmi; Suman Lata; Sandeep K Mishra; S Adinarayanan Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2017-02-06
Authors: Lukas E Wolf; José A Aguirre; Christian Vogt; Christian Keller; Alain Borgeat; Heinz R Bruppacher Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Shi Hao Chew; Jonathan Zhao Min Lim; Benjamin Zhao Bin Chin; Jia Xin Chan; Raymond Chern Hwee Siew Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 3.240