| Literature DB >> 34106596 |
Chai-Bae Shih1, Yu-Hwa Wu2, Chung-Ren Lin2, Chia-Chih Alex Tseng2.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Tracheal intubation is an essential technique for many healthcare professionals and one of the mega code simulations in advanced cardiac life support. In recent years, video laryngoscopy (VL) has provided a rescue for difficult airways during intubation and has proven to have higher success rates. Moreover, VL facilitates a more rapid learning curve for inexperienced doctors.In this article, we report 16 cases intubated with VL by a novice doctor of postgraduate year 1, who shared the learning experience and the difficulties encountered in this case series. We also conducted a statistical analysis to evaluate the learning outcomes of the trainee after 1 month.Our results showed that the overall first-shot success rate was 81.3% for the 16 objectives. Over time, improvements in intubation performance measures, including shortened duration and lower Intubation Difficulty Scale score, have been observed. In this learning project, we found that limitation of mouth opening (<2.5 fingers wide) is an important risk factor for predicting the initial difficulty of tracheal intubation on the novice trainee.For inexperienced doctors, VL produces high first-shot success rates for tracheal intubation and may be useful for training their performance in a short period of time. In addition, mouth opening <3 fingers wide may result in difficult intubation by novice doctors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34106596 PMCID: PMC8133044 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025723
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.889
Clinical characteristics of the cases.
| Order | Gender | Age | Risk K-score | IDS | Duration(s) | First attempt | Perception difficulty | Future difficulty | Comment |
| Case 1 | M | 23 | 5 | 2 | 95 | S | 40 | 35 | Deviated direction in the beginning caused failure to see the epiglottis, not to mention glottis. |
| Case 2 | F | 43 | 2 | 7 | 70a | F | 40 | 35 | Still problems with entrance direction and unsteady strength of hands. |
| Case 3 | M | 41 | 4 | 3 | 101 | S | 40 | 35 | Improved entrance direction. It was easier to see epiglottis. |
| Case 4 | F | 51 | 2 | 0 | 45 | S | 20 | 20 | Seeing epiglottis was smooth. Incoordination of bilateral hands became significant. |
| Case 5 | M | 78 | 5 | 6 | 60b | F | 25 | 25 | Tube insertion itself resulted in poor view. |
| Case 6 | M | 66 | 3 | 4 | 66 | S | 40 | 35 | Improvement of finding landmarks, but still had problems with tube insertion. |
| Case 7 | F | 42 | 1 | 0 | 60 | S | 20 | 20 | By adjusting the angle, insertion of tube improved. |
| Case 8 | F | 67 | 4 | 4 | 60c | F | 45 | 30 | Adjusting the insertion angle improved in such patients who had poor mouth opening. |
| Case 9 | M | 79 | 3 | 0 | 78 | S | 25 | 15 | Slow placement of tube help see the landmarks clearly. |
| Case 10 | M | 61 | 6 | 0 | 28 | S | 35 | 30 | Absence of incisors may lead to air leak when mask ventilation, but intubation was easier. |
| Case 11 | M | 51 | 3 | 1 | 61 | S | 50 | 50 | Cooperating with BURP to facilitate inlet view. |
| Case 12 | F | 7. | 4 | 0 | 46 | S | 25 | 25 | Complete the intubation smoothly with stable hands coordination. |
| Case 13 | M | 73 | 1 | 0 | 50 | S | 25 | 25 | Laryngospasm happened and insertion became difficult under this condition. |
| Case 14 | M | 72 | 5 | 0 | 44 | S | 20 | 15 | More mature skills with no obstacles. |
| Case 15 | F | 56 | 2 | 0 | 17 | S | 15 | 15 | More mature skills with no obstacles. |
| Case 16 | M | 70 | 4 | 1 | 34 | S | 25 | 25 | Could intubate independently with less duration. |
F = Failure; F = female; IDS = the intubation difficulty scale; M = male; S = Success.
a,b,cwere the durations of second attempt; a,b,c included the durations of second attempt; K-score, Kheterpal difficult mask and intubation scale1; perception difficulty, VAS 0-100 reported by intubation doctor; future difficulty, VAS 0-100 predicted by intubation doctor when the patient needs another intubation.
Figure 1The correlation between duration and order of intubation. R = −0.744, P < .001.
Figure 2The correlation between IDS and order of intubation. IDS= the intubation difficulty scale. R = −0.595, P < .05.