IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224017.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intubation with channeled versus non-channeled video laryngoscopes in simulated difficult airway by junior doctors in an out-of-hospital setting: A crossover manikin study

Author

Listed:
  • Shi Hao Chew
  • Jonathan Zhao Min Lim
  • Benjamin Zhao Bin Chin
  • Jia Xin Chan
  • Raymond Chern Hwee Siew

Abstract

Failure to secure the airway is an important cause of morbidity and mortality during resuscitations. We compared the rate of successful intubation of the King Vision™ aBlade™ channeled and non-channeled video laryngoscopes, and McGRATH™ MAC video laryngoscope when used by junior doctors to intubate a simulated difficult airway in an out-of-hospital setting. 105 junior doctors were recruited in a crossover study to perform tracheal intubation with the three video laryngoscopes on a simulated difficult airway using the SimMan® 3G manikin. Primary outcome was the rate of successful intubations. Secondary outcomes were time-to-visualization, time-to-intubation and ease of use. Rates of successful intubations were higher for King Vision channeled and McGrath compared to the King Vision non-channeled (85.7% and 82.9% respectively versus 24.8%; p

Suggested Citation

  • Shi Hao Chew & Jonathan Zhao Min Lim & Benjamin Zhao Bin Chin & Jia Xin Chan & Raymond Chern Hwee Siew, 2019. "Intubation with channeled versus non-channeled video laryngoscopes in simulated difficult airway by junior doctors in an out-of-hospital setting: A crossover manikin study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-9, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224017
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224017
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224017&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224017. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.