Title of article :
Comparing Four Video Laryngoscopes and One Optical Laryngoscope with a Standard Macintosh Blade in a Simulated Trapped Car Accident Victim
Author/Authors :
Raimann, Florian J Department of Anesthesiology - Intensive Care Medicine and Pain therapy - University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe University - Frankfurt - Germany , Tepperis, Daniel M Department of Anesthesiology - Intensive Care Medicine and Pain therapy - University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe University - Frankfurt - Germany , Meininger, Dirk Department of Anesthesia - Intensive Care Medicine and Pain - Germany , Zacharowski, Kai Department of Anesthesiology - Intensive Care Medicine and Pain therapy - University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe University - Frankfurt - Germany , Schalk, Richard Department of Anesthesiology - Intensive Care Medicine and Pain therapy - University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe University - Frankfurt - Germany , Byhahn, Christian Department of Anesthesia - Intensive Care Medicine and Pain therapy - Germany , Weber, Christian F Asklepios Clinics Hamburg - Asklepios Clinic Wandsbek - Department of Anesthesiology - Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine - Alphonsstraße 14, 22043 Hamburg - Germany , Mutlak, Haitham Department of Anesthesiology - Intensive Care Medicine and Pain therapy - University Hospital Frankfurt - Goethe University - Frankfurt - Germany
Abstract :
Background. Tracheal intubation still represents the “gold standard” in securing the airway of unconscious patients in the prehospital setting. Especially in cases of restricted access to the patient, video laryngoscopy became more and more relevant.
Objectives. )e aim of the study was to evaluate the performance and intubation success of four different video laryngoscopes, one
optical laryngoscope, and a Macintosh blade while intubating from two different positions in a mannequin trial with difficult
access to the patient. Methods. A mannequin with a cervical collar was placed on the driver’s seat. Intubation was performed with
six different laryngoscopes either through the driver’s window or from the backseat. Success, C/L score, time to best view (TTBV),
time to intubation (TTI), and number of attempts were measured. All participants were asked to rate their favored device. Results.
Forty-two physicians participated. 100% of all intubations performed from the backseat were successful. Intubation success
through the driver’s window was less successful. Only with the Airtraq® optical laryngoscope, 100% success was achieved. Best
visualization (window C/L 2a; backseat C/L 2a) and shortest TTBV (window 4.7 s; backseat 4.1 s) were obtained when using the
D-Blade video laryngoscope, but this was not associated with a higher success through the driver’s window. Fastest TTI was
achieved through the window (14.2 s) when using the C-MAC video laryngoscope and from the backseat (7.3 s) when using a
Macintosh blade. Conclusions. Video laryngoscopy revealed better results in visualization but was not associated with a higher
success. Success depended on the approach and familiarity with the device. We believe that video laryngoscopy is suitable for
securing airways in trapped accident victims. )e decision for an optimal device is complicated and should be based upon experience and regular training with the device.
Keywords :
Video Laryngoscopes , Optical Laryngoscope , Standard Macintosh Blade , Car Accident Victim
Journal title :
Emergency Medicine International