IntroductionWe compare the effectiveness of direct laryngoscopy (DL) to video laryngoscopy (VL) in simulated, difficult airway scenarios in a cohort of novice, prehospital, emergency care providers.MethodsForty-five (45) students were randomised to DL or VL groups and then tasked to perform intubation on a manikin in three simulated airway scenarios. The scenarios included an uncomplicated intubation, intubation with manual in-line neck stabilisation (MILNS), and a simulated motor vehicle entrapment, with C-Spine held from behind, using a face-to-face intubation technique. The primary outcome was time taken to intubate, with secondary outcomes including first pass success rate, number of intubation attempts, Cormack-Lehane (CL) view grade obtained, adverse event rate, and self-reported laryngoscopist comfort.ResultsTwenty-seven participants (VL n = 15, DL n = 12) completed the study. Mean time to intubate was not statistically different between VL and DL groups in any scenario. VL was associated with an increased frequency of intubation attempts (p = 0.043) and failed intubations (RR 6.4, 95% CI 0.92–44.33, p = 0.0175) in the face-to-face intubation scenario, VL was associated with a reduced incidence of poor CL view (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.004–0.997, p = 0.0497) in the face-to-face intubation scenario, and a reduction in the frequency of dental damage (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02–0.96, p = 0.0165) in the supine MILNS scenario.DiscussionIn our small sample, we found DL to be superior to VL in relation to a reduced risk of failed intubation and frequency of intubation attempts despite VL being superior in obtaining a good view of the vocal cords in a face-to-face intubation scenario. We found no statistically significant difference in the time taken to intubate in any scenarios. A larger study is required to inform practice and education around prehospital use of VL.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.