Novel Video-Laryngoscope with Wireless Image Transmission via Wi-Fi towards a Smartphone

Abstract

A low-cost video laryngoscope (VDL) called Hybrid 1.0 was developed using smart devices for visualization. To test its performance, we compared it with a high-end VDL device, using both in vitro and in vivo studies. During the in vitro study, medical students without experience in airway intubation were randomly asked to intubate a mannequin with different degrees of difficulty (Cormack–Lehane scales) by using either the Hybrid 1.0 VDL (GI) or a conventional laryngoscope (GII). During the in vivo study, N = 60 endotracheal intubations were performed by resident and base physicians, divided into two groups; the first group intubated with the Hybrid 1.0 VDL (GI) while the second group used a VDL C-Mac shovel (GII). As performance indexes, both studies reported the number of successful intubations (correct capnography signal) and intubation time. For the in vitro testing, no statistically significant differences were found regarding the number of successful intubations, while statistically significant differences were found regarding the intubation times. During the in vivo tests, procedures were performed by residents and by base physicians, and no statistically significant differences were found. The provided results point out that the VDL proposed can be clinically useful and offers technical characteristics similar to other VDLs that currently exist on the market.

The Efficacy of O-Mac®, Patent Video Laryngoscope, and Conventional Laryngoscope for Intubation in the Operating Room

“…3 shovels (GII) with results of degrees I, II, III, and IV sequentially [(14, 1, 0, 0; 1, 8, 3, 3)] with p ≤ 0.0001. In this study it is different from Vadhanan (2017) comparing Miller and V-scope obtained CL I, II, and III degrees, the results are sequentially (7,9,4); (16,3,1) with significant p = 0.0015 [15]. This is because in this study the subject population has been determined with limited inclusion criteria, namely mallampati only I and II, BMI in each device with a normal median, the degree of CL I-III, the tool used has the same design, namely using Machintos blades and allowed to use assistive tools/techniques while using the tools to get the best visualization results.…”

“…On Vadhanan (2017) intubation time v-scope mean ± SD (77.25 ± 26.46 s) and intubation time miller mean ± SD (74.15 ± 26.3 s), p < 0.001 [14]. Hernandez (2020) with each sample of 15 subjects, it was known that VDL Hybrid 1.0 (GI) and Macintosh No. 3 shovels (GII) with median results of G1 27 (15-120) and GII 106 (18-120) s with p = 0.005 [15].…”

“…Hernandez (2020) with each sample of 15 subjects, it was known that VDL Hybrid 1.0 (GI) and Macintosh No. 3 shovels (GII) with median results of G1 27 (15-120) and GII 106 (18-120) s with p = 0.005 [15]. Bueggeney ( 2016…”

Performance of custom made videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation: A systematic review

“…Another 7 studies although had proposed a novel form of videolaryngoscope in the title, were not customised form for use [ 15 – 21 ] Other 5 studies out of 21 were editorials, case series, letters to editors with no human participation involved and with no intervention [ 4 , 22 – 25 ]. The remaining five studies were eligible and contained data with intervention performed in the patients [ 6 , 26 – 29 ]. Out of five, only three studies had a comparison group [ 26 – 28 ].…”

“…Almost all studies except one study [ 26 ] had no justification for sample size, power description and effect estimates. Exposures measures were defined clearly in all studies except one [ 29 ]. However, the consistency of the exposures variable across all study participants was questionable among all studies.…”