4.5 Article

Evaluation of a single-use intubating videoscope (Ambu aScopeTM) in three airway training manikins for oral intubation, nasal intubation and intubation via three supraglottic airway devices

期刊

ANAESTHESIA
卷 66, 期 4, 页码 293-299

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06647.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>We compared the Ambu aScope (TM) with a conventional fibrescope in two simulated settings. First, 22 volunteers performed paired oral and nasal fibreoptic intubations in three different manikins: the Laerdal Airway Trainer, Bill 1 and the Airsim (a total of 264 intubations). Second, 21 volunteers intubated the Airway Trainer manikin via three supraglottic airways: classic and intubating laryngeal mask airways and i-gel (a total of 66 intubations). Performance of the aScope was good with few failures and infrequent problems. In the first study, choice of fibrescope had an impact on the number of user-reported problems (p = 0.004), and user-assessed ratings of ease of endoscopy (p < 0.001) and overall usefulness (p < 0.001), but not on time to intubate (p = 0.19), or ease of railroading (p = 0.72). The manikin chosen and route of endoscopy had more consistent effects on performance: best performance was via the nasal route in the Airway Trainer manikin. In the second study, the choice of fibrescope did not significantly affect any performance outcome (p = 0.3), but there was a significant difference in the speed of intubation between the devices (p = 0.02) with the i-gel the fastest intubation conduit (mean (SD) intubation time i-gel 18.5 (6.8) s, intubating laryngeal mask airway = 24.1 (11.2) s, classic laryngeal mask airway = 31.4 (32.5) s, p = 0.02). We conclude that the aScope performs well in simulated fibreoptic intubation and (if adapted for untimed use) would be a useful training tool for both simulated fibreoptic intubation and conduit-assisted intubation. The choice of manikin and conduit are also important in the success of such training. This manikin study does not predict performance in humans and a clinical study is required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据