Ayşe Berna Anil1, Murat Anil2, Fatih Durak3, Ümüt Altuğ3, Gökçen Özçifçi3, Gülşen Yalçın2, Şule Demir2. 1. Department of Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, School of Medicine, İzmir,Turkey. 2. Pediatric Emergency Clinic, University of Health Sciences Tepecik Training and Research Hospital Izmir, Turkey. 3. Pediatric Intensive Care Clinic, University of Health Sciences, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital İzmir, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of direct and videolaryngoscopy procedures performed by pediatric residents who had limited experience of direct endotracheal intubation and had not previously used video laryngoscopes in a normal airway child manikin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The endotracheal intubations performed by pediatric residents with a direct laryngoscope and Storz C-MAC videolaryngoscope on a pediatric manikin with a normal airway were compared. Theoretical and practical training was given before the study. In the first attempt, the success of the intubation procedure, glottis visual duration, and endotracheal tube insertion time were determined. Practitioners grouped the glottis image between 1-4 according to the Cormack-Lehane Staging (Stage 1 ideal image). After the intervention, the participants scored one to ten points on direct and videolaryngoscopy (1 not useful, 10 very useful). RESULTS: The success of direct and videolaryngoscopy of 51 pediatric residents on the same manikin was 48 out of 51 (94%) for each method (P> 0.05). Glottis visual duration was similar in both methods (P>0.05); tube insertion and total intubation time were shorter in the video laryngoscope group (P<0.05); glottis image was better in the video laryngoscope group according to Cormack-Lehane Classification (P<0.05). Participants' rating was higher on videolaryngoscope (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Users with limited endotracheal intubation experience use Video laryncoscope more effectively than direct laryngoscope in children with normal airway model after training.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of direct and videolaryngoscopy procedures performed by pediatric residents who had limited experience of direct endotracheal intubation and had not previously used video laryngoscopes in a normal airway child manikin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The endotracheal intubations performed by pediatric residents with a direct laryngoscope and Storz C-MAC videolaryngoscope on a pediatric manikin with a normal airway were compared. Theoretical and practical training was given before the study. In the first attempt, the success of the intubation procedure, glottis visual duration, and endotracheal tube insertion time were determined. Practitioners grouped the glottis image between 1-4 according to the Cormack-Lehane Staging (Stage 1 ideal image). After the intervention, the participants scored one to ten points on direct and videolaryngoscopy (1 not useful, 10 very useful). RESULTS: The success of direct and videolaryngoscopy of 51 pediatric residents on the same manikin was 48 out of 51 (94%) for each method (P> 0.05). Glottis visual duration was similar in both methods (P>0.05); tube insertion and total intubation time were shorter in the video laryngoscope group (P<0.05); glottis image was better in the video laryngoscope group according to Cormack-Lehane Classification (P<0.05). Participants' rating was higher on videolaryngoscope (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Users with limited endotracheal intubation experience use Video laryncoscope more effectively than direct laryngoscope in children with normal airway model after training.
Authors: Allan R de Caen; Marc D Berg; Leon Chameides; Cheryl K Gooden; Robert W Hickey; Halden F Scott; Robert M Sutton; Janice A Tijssen; Alexis Topjian; Élise W van der Jagt; Stephen M Schexnayder; Ricardo A Samson Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Joyce E O'Shea; Marta Thio; C Omar Kamlin; Lorraine McGrory; Connie Wong; Jubal John; Calum Roberts; Carl Kuschel; Peter G Davis Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Marissa G Vadi; Katie J Roddy; Elizabeth A Ghazal; Michael Um; Andrew J Neiheisel; Richard L Applegate Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Dana P Edelson; Comilla Sasson; Paul S Chan; Dianne L Atkins; Khalid Aziz; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg; Steven M Bradley; Steven C Brooks; Adam Cheng; Marilyn Escobedo; Gustavo E Flores; Saket Girotra; Antony Hsu; Beena D Kamath-Rayne; Henry C Lee; Rebecca E Lehotsky; Mary E Mancini; Raina M Merchant; Vinay M Nadkarni; Ashish R Panchal; Mary Ann R Peberdy; Tia T Raymond; Brian Walsh; David S Wang; Carolyn M Zelop; Alexis A Topjian Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 29.690