Efficacy of Coopdech videolaryngoscope: comparisons with a Macintosh laryngoscope and the Airway Scope in a manikin with difficult airways.
ABSTRACT We studied the efficacy of the Coopdech videolaryngoscope Portable VLP-100, by comparing it with a Macintosh laryngoscope, and another videolaryngoscope, the Airway Scope (AWS), in a manikin with four simulated difficult airways. In a randomized, crossover design, each of 50 residents inserted the three devices, in turn, and graded the view of the glottis at laryngoscopy. Time to see the glottis, time to intubate the trachea, and the success rate of tracheal intubation (within 120 s) were recorded. In all situations, the AWS provided a significantly shorter time to see the glottis. In a manikin with tongue edema, the AWS was associated with a significantly higher success rate of intubation than the VLP-100 and the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.05). In a manikin with cervical spine rigidity or pharyngeal obstruction, the AWS and the VLP-100 provided significantly higher success rates of intubation than the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.05). In a manikin with laryngospasm, no one could intubate the trachea using any device. Our results indicate that, in patients with difficult airways, the videolaryngoscopes (VLP-100 and AWS) would provide higher success rates of tracheal intubation than the Macintosh laryngoscope, but the VLP-100 may be inferior to the AWS.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: American Heart Association (AHA) 2010 cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines recommend high-quality chest compressions (minimum interruption, a pace >100 compressions/min, and a depth more than 5 cm). They propose minor changes for pregnant women: manual left deviation of the uterus or a left-lateral incline of 27°-30° to alleviate pressure on the inferior vena cava. We examined the performance of the Pentax-AWS Airwayscope (AWS) and Macintosh laryngoscope (McL) for airway management during chest compressions on a 27° left-lateral tilt (27 LLT) operating table. METHODS: The study included 18 novice doctors in our anesthesia department. They performed tracheal intubation on a manikin positioned on a 27 LLT operating table using the AWS or McL with or without chest compressions. We measured the intubation time and success rate for tracheal intubation. RESULTS: Intubation success rate with the McL decreased with chest compressions compared to without chest compressions (12/18 vs. 18/18, P < 0.05). Intubation time with the McL was lengthened with chest compressions compared to without chest compressions (18.9 ± 4.0 s vs. 11.1 ± 1.0 s, P < 0.05). Intubation success rate was the same for the AWS with and without chest compressions (18/18 in both cases), and intubation time did not increase significantly without compressions compared to with compressions (11.6 ± 1.4 s vs. 12.6 ± 1.2 s, NS). CONCLUSIONS: The AWS is an effective tool for airway management during chest compressions in 27 LLT in a manikin, suggesting that the AWS may be a useful device for airway management during maternal resuscitation.Journal of Anesthesia 04/2013; · 0.87 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Pentax Airway Scope® is a single-use optical videolaryngoscope designed to assist with difficult tracheal intubation. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of the Pentax Airway Scope with that of a conventional laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults with ‘normal’ and ‘difficult’ airways. We included 17 randomised controlled trials with a total of 1801 participants. We used the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model to calculate pooled relative risk or weighted mean differences. The relative risk (95% CI) of a Cormack–Lehane grade-1 laryngeal view was 2.40 (1.76–2.49) with the Pentax Airway Scope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, p < 0.00001. We found no other differences between the two laryngoscopes. Despite a superior laryngeal view, the Pentax Airway Scope provides little clinical benefit over the conventional laryngoscope.Anaesthesia 05/2014; · 3.49 Impact Factor
- Journal of Anesthesia 03/2014; · 0.87 Impact Factor