Meliha Findik1, Afsin E Kayipmaz2, Cemil Kavalci3, Tugce Sencelikel Sencelikel4, Murat Muratoglu5, Aysegul Akcebe6, Bulent Gungorer7, Gulsum Kavalci8. 1. Balikesir University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency, Balikesir, Turkey. 2. Ankara City Hospital, Department of Emergency, Ankara, Turkey. draekayipmaz@gmail.com. 3. Ankara Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency, Ankara, Turkey. 4. Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biostatistics, Ankara, Turkey. 5. Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency, Ankara, Turkey. 6. Kiziltepe State Hospital, Department of Emergency, Mardin, Turkey. 7. Ankara City Hospital, Department of Emergency, Ankara, Turkey. 8. Yenimahalle Training and Research Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a low-cost custom-made universal serial bus (USB) endoscope laryngoscope for intubation with a direct laryngoscope and a high-cost video laryngoscope in a mannequin study. METHODS: We used one intubation simulator model (mannequin) in our study. A USB endoscope was mounted to the direct laryngoscope as a custom-made USB endoscope laryngoscope (USB-L). We used a video laryngoscope (Glidescope®, Verathon, USA) and a direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for comparison. Intubation time and the correct placement of the tube were measured. Intubations were performed by two operators and results were compared. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference between the video and direct laryngoscope groups (p < 0.001), as well as between the USB-L and direct laryngoscope groups (p = 0.001) for Operator 1. For Operator 2, there was a statistically significant difference between the video laryngoscope group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.022); however, we did not find a significant difference between the USB-L group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.154). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the USB-L and video laryngoscope groups for either operator (p=0.347 for Operator 1 and p>0.999 for Operator 2). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that USB endoscope laryngoscope provided similar intubation time to video laryngoscopy at a fraction of the cost; and both had superior times in comparison with direct laryngoscopy.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a low-cost custom-made universal serial bus (USB) endoscope laryngoscope for intubation with a direct laryngoscope and a high-cost video laryngoscope in a mannequin study. METHODS: We used one intubation simulator model (mannequin) in our study. A USB endoscope was mounted to the direct laryngoscope as a custom-made USB endoscope laryngoscope (USB-L). We used a video laryngoscope (Glidescope®, Verathon, USA) and a direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for comparison. Intubation time and the correct placement of the tube were measured. Intubations were performed by two operators and results were compared. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference between the video and direct laryngoscope groups (p < 0.001), as well as between the USB-L and direct laryngoscope groups (p = 0.001) for Operator 1. For Operator 2, there was a statistically significant difference between the video laryngoscope group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.022); however, we did not find a significant difference between the USB-L group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.154). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the USB-L and video laryngoscope groups for either operator (p=0.347 for Operator 1 and p>0.999 for Operator 2). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that USB endoscope laryngoscope provided similar intubation time to video laryngoscopy at a fraction of the cost; and both had superior times in comparison with direct laryngoscopy.