Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care. 2022 Sep 25;28(1):25-28. doi: 10.2478/rjaic-2021-0004. eCollection 2021 Jul.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The procedures of introducing an airway by intubation are associated with increased risk of aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2 virus, posing a high risk to the personnel involved. Newer and novel methods such as the intubation box have been developed to increase the safety of healthcare workers during intubation.
METHODS DESIGN: In this study, 33 anaesthesiologist and critical care specialists intubated the trachea of the airway manikin (US Laerdal Medical AS™) 4 times using a King Vision® videolaryngoscope and TRUVIEW PCD™ videolaryngoscope (with and without an intubation box as described by Lai). Intubation time was primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were first-pass intubation success rate, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score and peak force to maxillary incisors.
RESULTS: Intubation time and the number of times a click was heard during tracheal intubation were considerably higher in both groups when an intubation box was used (Table 1). When comparing the two laryngoscopes, the King Vision® videolaryngoscope enabled much less time to intubate than did the TRUVIEW laryngoscope, both with and without the intubation box. (P<0.001) In both laryngoscope groups, first-pass successful intubation was higher without the intubation box, although the difference was statistically insignificant. POGO score was not affected by intubation box but a higher score was observed with King Vision® laryngoscope (Tables 1,2).
CONCLUSION: This study indicates that use of an intubation box makes intubation difficult and increases the time needed to perform it. King Vision® videolaryngoscope results in lesser intubation time and better glottic view as compared to TRUVIEW laryngoscope.
PMID:36846538 | PMC:PMC9949008 | DOI:10.2478/rjaic-2021-0004
