Comparison of the Macintosh Laryngoscope and the Disposcope Endoscope(R) in Both Normal Airway and Manual In-line Stabilization for Suspected Cervical Spine Injury Patients: A Simulation Study using an Airway Training Manikin

Son,  Sung Ho; Park,  Sang O; Baek,  Kwang Je; Choi,  Phil Jo

J Korean Soc Emerg Med > Volume 22(6); 2011 > Article

Original Article

Journal of The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2011;22(6): 628-634.

Comparison of the Macintosh Laryngoscope and the Disposcope Endoscope(R) in Both Normal Airway and Manual In-line Stabilization for Suspected Cervical Spine Injury Patients: A Simulation Study using an Airway Training Manikin

Sung Ho Son, Sang O Park, Kwang Je Baek, Phil Jo Choi

¹Department of Emergency Medicine, School of medicine, Konkuk University Konkuk University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 20050694@kuh.ac.kr
²Department of Emergency Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul Korea.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:
We conducted a comparative evaluation in the ease of endotracheal intubation when using the Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) versus the new Disposcope endoscope(R) (DE) (Disposcope Taiwan, Hsinchuang city, Taiwan), a video-laryngoscope, during simulated normal airway and manual in-line stabilization of suspected cervical spine injury patients.
METHODS:
Forty-three medical interns participating in an endotracheal intubation training program used both the DE and the ML as part of their lessons. In each of the two simulated patient scenarios, endotracheal intubation was performed using each endoscope, in random order. The rate of successful intubation, time required for visualizing the glottis, time to complete endotracheal intubation, results of a modified Cormack & Lehane classification (CL grade), and a measure of dental injury were all recorded and analyzed.
RESULTS:
In the normal airway scenario, there was no difference in the rate of successful completion of intubation (both 100%) between the two endoscopes. Time to complete endotracheal intubation using the DE was shorter than that with the ML (10.7 versus 12.6 sec; p=0 010). In the trauma scenario, despite similar success rates (95.3% in ML versus 100% in DE), the time required to complete endotracheal intubation using the DE was shorter than that with the ML (17.6 versus 24.1 sec; p=0.010). Rate of dental injury using the DE was significantly less than that observed with the ML (0.0% versus 30.2%; p<0.0001). In both scenarios, the DE provided higher achievement of CL grade 1 (93% versus 67.4% in normal airway; p=0.006 and 55.8% versus 0% in trauma airway; p<0.0001).
CONCLUSION:
Compared to the ML, the DE provided a better view of the glottis, provided decreased dental trauma, and offered faster completion time for endotracheal intubation.

Key words: Endotracheal Intubation, Manikin, laryngoscope, Trauma, Video laryngoscope