UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

A simulated severe difficult airway does not alter the intubation performance with the SensaScope: a prospective randomised manikin study


Ludwig, A A; Baulig, W; Biro, P (2011). A simulated severe difficult airway does not alter the intubation performance with the SensaScope: a prospective randomised manikin study. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 28(6):449-453.

Abstract

DESIGN:

Prospective randomised controlled study.
SETTING:

Operation unit in a tertiary academic university hospital in a central European city. Period of the study was springtime and summer 2010.
PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS:

Twenty-four anaesthesiologists with various levels of professional experience were allocated to intubate an airway manikin either with the SensaScope (group S) or with the conventional Macintosh 3 laryngoscope (group L).
INTERVENTIONS:

Each participant performed three consecutive intubations with normal anatomy followed by three intubations with difficult anatomy. The airway difficulty was simulated by inflation of the manikin's tongue base with 40 ml of air. The times taken to view the larynx and to insert the tracheal tube were noted. The resulting tube position and the occurrence of dental damage were recorded.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Those planned in the protocol.
RESULTS:

In normal anatomy, the laryngeal view (group L 5.9 ± 4.2 s vs. group S 9.2 ± 3.5 s) and intubation (group L 13.4 ± 7.6 s vs. group S 23.3 ± 8.6 s) was more rapidly obtained with conventional laryngoscopy (values presented as mean ± SD). In difficult anatomy, only the SensaScope permitted successful laryngeal view (group L impossible vs. group S 9.9 ± 4.8 s) and tracheal intubation (group L impossible vs. group S 23.4 ± 8.8 s). The latter always enabled correct tracheal tube position, whereas with laryngoscopy alone either oesophageal intubation or aborted attempts resulted. In the difficult airway setting, the frequency of simulated tooth damage was also significantly higher with conventional laryngoscopy (group L 26 of 36 vs. group S 6 of 36).
CONCLUSIONS:

The SensaScope performed fairly well in normal intubation anatomy, although its use was more complex than with conventional laryngoscopy and it required a slightly longer time. In the difficult airway setting, the SensaScope performed as well as in normal anatomy, whereas intubation by direct laryngoscopy proved to be impossible. The SensaScope enables the user to overcome severe airway difficulties caused by large tissue masses at the level of the tongue base or mouth floor.

DESIGN:

Prospective randomised controlled study.
SETTING:

Operation unit in a tertiary academic university hospital in a central European city. Period of the study was springtime and summer 2010.
PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS:

Twenty-four anaesthesiologists with various levels of professional experience were allocated to intubate an airway manikin either with the SensaScope (group S) or with the conventional Macintosh 3 laryngoscope (group L).
INTERVENTIONS:

Each participant performed three consecutive intubations with normal anatomy followed by three intubations with difficult anatomy. The airway difficulty was simulated by inflation of the manikin's tongue base with 40 ml of air. The times taken to view the larynx and to insert the tracheal tube were noted. The resulting tube position and the occurrence of dental damage were recorded.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Those planned in the protocol.
RESULTS:

In normal anatomy, the laryngeal view (group L 5.9 ± 4.2 s vs. group S 9.2 ± 3.5 s) and intubation (group L 13.4 ± 7.6 s vs. group S 23.3 ± 8.6 s) was more rapidly obtained with conventional laryngoscopy (values presented as mean ± SD). In difficult anatomy, only the SensaScope permitted successful laryngeal view (group L impossible vs. group S 9.9 ± 4.8 s) and tracheal intubation (group L impossible vs. group S 23.4 ± 8.8 s). The latter always enabled correct tracheal tube position, whereas with laryngoscopy alone either oesophageal intubation or aborted attempts resulted. In the difficult airway setting, the frequency of simulated tooth damage was also significantly higher with conventional laryngoscopy (group L 26 of 36 vs. group S 6 of 36).
CONCLUSIONS:

The SensaScope performed fairly well in normal intubation anatomy, although its use was more complex than with conventional laryngoscopy and it required a slightly longer time. In the difficult airway setting, the SensaScope performed as well as in normal anatomy, whereas intubation by direct laryngoscopy proved to be impossible. The SensaScope enables the user to overcome severe airway difficulties caused by large tissue masses at the level of the tongue base or mouth floor.

Citations

3 citations in Web of Science®
3 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 11 Jan 2012
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Institute of Anesthesiology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2011
Deposited On:11 Jan 2012 20:23
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 15:18
Publisher:Lippincott Wiliams & Wilkins
ISSN:0265-0215
Additional Information:Comment in: Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012 Jan;29(1):55-6; author reply 56-57.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283460fc9
PubMed ID:21544022
Permanent URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-53804

Download

[img]
Content: Published Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 137kB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations