Comparison of VividTrac?, Airtraq?, King Vision?, Macintosh Laryngoscope and a Custom-Made Videolaryngoscope for difficult and normal airways in mannequins by novices

摘要

Background Direct laryngoscopy remains the gold standard for endotracheal intubation and is preferred by experienced operators. However, an increasing number of reports currently support videolaryngoscopy, particularly for novice users. The widespread use of videolaryngoscopy may be limited due to financial limitations, especially in low-income countries. Therefore, affordable single-use scopes are now becoming increasingly popular. We sought to compare these new scopes with direct laryngoscopes and the previously tested videolaryngoscopes in mannequins by novices. Methods Fifty medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students were asked to execute endotracheal intubation with each of the devices, including the Airtraq?, a custom-made videolaryngoscope, the King Vision?, the Macintosh laryngoscope and the VividTrac?, on an airway trainer (Laerdal Airway Management Trainer?) in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and the proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma and user satisfaction. Results We observed no differences in esophageal intubation. However, intubation-related times, the view of the glottis and operator satisfaction were significantly better throughout the study with the commercial videolaryngoscopes. In comparison, the custom-made videolaryngoscope performance proved to be similar to that of the Macintosh laryngoscope. The VividTrac? performance was similar ( P >?0.05) or significantly better than that of the King Vision? in both scenarios. Conclusions Based upon our results, the Airtraq?, King Vision? and VividTrac? were superior to the Macintosh laryngscope in both normal and difficult airway scencarios for novice users. In particular, our study is the first to report that the VividTrac? shows promise for further clinical evaluation.