Share this Article
Lye ST, Liaw CM, Seet E, Koh KF
Correspondence: Dr Lye Soh Teng, email@example.com
Introduction Indirect laryngoscopes offer improved laryngeal view and higher success rates of intubation, particularly for difficult airways. We hypothesised that: (a) the time required for intubation, overall success rates and ease of intubation with indirect laryngoscopes would be better than with the Macintosh laryngoscope; and (b) novices may achieve higher success rates and intubate faster using indirect laryngoscopes.
Methods In a cross-sectional observational study, 13 novices and 13 skilled anaesthetists were recruited. Participants were compared when intubating a manikin simulating normal and difficult airway scenarios using the Macintosh laryngoscope, Pentax Airway Scope® (AWS), C-MACTM and Bonfils intubation fibrescope.
Results There was no significant difference in intubation success rates between the groups. Skilled anaesthetists intubated faster than novices with Pentax AWS in the difficult airway scenario (22 s vs. 33 s, p = 0.047). The mean intubation times for C-MAC and Pentax AWS were shorter than for the Macintosh laryngoscope and Bonfils intubation fibrescope in both difficult (C-MAC: 24 s, Pentax AWS: 28 s, Macintosh: 80 s, Bonfils: 61 s; p < 0.001) and normal (C-MAC: 17 s, Pentax AWS: 19 s, Macintosh: 39 s, Bonfils: 38 s; p = 0.002) airway scenarios.
Conclusion We found that intubation success was more than 85% with all indirect laryngoscopes compared to 69% for the Macintosh laryngoscope. Both C-MAC and Pentax AWS achieved faster intubation times compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope and Bonfils intubation fibrescope for both airway scenarios. Skilled anaesthetists were 33% faster than novices when intubating a difficult airway using Pentax AWS.
Keywords: difficult airway, manikin, novice, video laryngoscopy
Singapore Med J 2013; 54(2): 64–68; http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2013026
| 1. Thierbach AR. Advanced prehospital airway management techniques. Eur J Emerg Med 2002; 9:298-302. |
| 2. Jungbauer A, Schumann A, Brunkhorst V, Borgers A, Groeben H. Expected difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective comparison of direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102:546-50. |
| 3. Malik MA, Hassett P, Carney J, et al. A comparison of the Glidescope, Pentax AWS, and Macintosh laryngoscopes when used by novice personnel: a manikin study. Can J Anaesth 2009; 56:802-11. |
| 4. Serocki G, Bein B, Scholz J, Dorges V. Management of the predicted difficult airway: a comparison of conventional laryngoscopy with videoassisted blade laryngoscopy and the glidescope. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:24-30. |
| 5. Piepho T, Noppens RR, Heid F, Werner V, Thierbach AR. Rigid fiberscope Bonfils: use in simulated difficult airway by novices. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2009; 17:33. |
| 6. Rosser JC Jr, Lynch PJ, Cuddihy L, et al. The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st century. Arch Surg 2007; 142:181-6. |
| 7. Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984;39:1105-11. |
| 8. Lim TJ, Lim Y, Liu EH. Evaluation of ease of intubation with the Glidescope or Macintosh laryngoscope by anaesthetists in simulated easy and difficult laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2005; 60:180-3. |
| 9. Liu L, Tanigawa K, Kusunoki S, et al. Tracheal Intubation of a Difficult Airway Using Airway Scope, Airtraq, and Macintosh Laryngoscope: A Comparative Manikin Study of Inexperienced Personnel. Anesth Analg 2010; 110:1049-55. |
| 10. Halligan M, Charters P. A clinical evaluation of the Bonfils Intubation fibrescope. Anaesthesia 2003; 58:1087-91. |
| 11. Schebesta K, Hüpfl M, Rössler B, et al. Degrees of reality: airway anatomy of high-fidelity human patient simulators and airway trainers. Anesthesiology 2012; 116:1204-9. |