Comparison of Video Laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) for Endotracheal Intubation in a Manikin with Restricted Neck Motion.

IF 2.9 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-31 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2421
Welawat Tienpratarn, Methapat Boonyingsatit, Chaiyaporn Yuksen, Sittichok Leela-Amornsin, Parunchaya Jamkrajang, Thammanunt Chrunarm, Sumate Rienrakwong
{"title":"Comparison of Video Laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) for Endotracheal Intubation in a Manikin with Restricted Neck Motion.","authors":"Welawat Tienpratarn, Methapat Boonyingsatit, Chaiyaporn Yuksen, Sittichok Leela-Amornsin, Parunchaya Jamkrajang, Thammanunt Chrunarm, Sumate Rienrakwong","doi":"10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Intubating patients undergoing manual in-line stabilization (MILS) can make airway management more challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of intubation with video-laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) in manikin with restricted neck motion using MILS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this comparative study, emergency medicine residents and paramedics were randomly allocated to two crossover sets. Then the intubation outcomes (success rate, time to successful intubation, and cervical spine movement) were compared between intubation with VL and I-LMA in a manikin model with restricted cervical spine mobility, achieved through MILS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>64 participants with a mean age of 28.86 ± 4.03 (range: 24-47) years and a mean duration of intubation experience of 3.63 ± 1.35 years were studied (43.75% male, 81.3% emergency medicine resident). The intubation success rate was 62 out of 64 (96.88%) in the VL method and 52 out of 64 (81.25%) in the I-LMA method (p = 0.008). The mean time to successful intubation was 33.03±16.94 seconds in the VL method and 55.03±17.34 seconds in the I-LMA method (p < 0.001). The mean cervical range of motion (CROM) in flexion-extension was 4.38±1.82 degrees in the VL method and 4.13±3.20 degrees in the I-LMA method (p = 0.158). The mean CROM in rotation was 4.27±2.62 degrees in the VL method and 4.65±2.47 degrees in the I-LMA method (p= 0.258) and the mean CROM in lateral bending was 5.35±4.45 degrees in the VL method and 7.71±6.14 degrees in the I-LMA method (p = 0.010).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a manikin model with restricted cervical spine mobility, the utilization of VL significantly improved intubation success rates, reduced time to successful intubation, and limited CROM.</p>","PeriodicalId":8146,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"e1"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417637/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Intubating patients undergoing manual in-line stabilization (MILS) can make airway management more challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of intubation with video-laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) in manikin with restricted neck motion using MILS.

Methods: In this comparative study, emergency medicine residents and paramedics were randomly allocated to two crossover sets. Then the intubation outcomes (success rate, time to successful intubation, and cervical spine movement) were compared between intubation with VL and I-LMA in a manikin model with restricted cervical spine mobility, achieved through MILS.

Results: 64 participants with a mean age of 28.86 ± 4.03 (range: 24-47) years and a mean duration of intubation experience of 3.63 ± 1.35 years were studied (43.75% male, 81.3% emergency medicine resident). The intubation success rate was 62 out of 64 (96.88%) in the VL method and 52 out of 64 (81.25%) in the I-LMA method (p = 0.008). The mean time to successful intubation was 33.03±16.94 seconds in the VL method and 55.03±17.34 seconds in the I-LMA method (p < 0.001). The mean cervical range of motion (CROM) in flexion-extension was 4.38±1.82 degrees in the VL method and 4.13±3.20 degrees in the I-LMA method (p = 0.158). The mean CROM in rotation was 4.27±2.62 degrees in the VL method and 4.65±2.47 degrees in the I-LMA method (p= 0.258) and the mean CROM in lateral bending was 5.35±4.45 degrees in the VL method and 7.71±6.14 degrees in the I-LMA method (p = 0.010).

Conclusion: In a manikin model with restricted cervical spine mobility, the utilization of VL significantly improved intubation success rates, reduced time to successful intubation, and limited CROM.

在颈部活动受限的人体模型中使用视频喉镜 (VL) 和喉罩气道 (I-LMA) 进行气管插管的比较。
简介:对接受人工在线稳定(MILS)的患者进行插管会使气道管理更具挑战性。本研究旨在比较在颈部活动受限的人体模型上使用视频喉镜(VL)和喉罩气道插管(I-LMA)进行 MILS 插管的结果:在这项比较研究中,急诊科住院医师和护理人员被随机分配到两组交叉组中。然后通过 MILS 在颈椎活动受限的人体模型中比较 VL 和 I-LMA 的插管结果(成功率、成功插管时间和颈椎活动度):64 名参与者的平均年龄为 28.86 ± 4.03(范围:24-47)岁,平均插管经验时间为 3.63 ± 1.35 年(43.75% 为男性,81.3% 为急诊科住院医师)。采用 VL 方法的 64 人中有 62 人(96.88%)获得了插管成功,采用 I-LMA 方法的 64 人中有 52 人(81.25%)获得了插管成功(P = 0.008)。VL 方法的平均插管成功时间为 33.03±16.94 秒,I-LMA 方法为 55.03±17.34 秒(p < 0.001)。VL 方法的平均颈椎屈伸活动范围 (CROM) 为 4.38±1.82 度,I-LMA 方法为 4.13±3.20 度(p = 0.158)。VL法的旋转平均CROM为4.27±2.62度,I-LMA法为4.65±2.47度(p= 0.258);VL法的侧弯平均CROM为5.35±4.45度,I-LMA法为7.71±6.14度(p= 0.010):结论:在颈椎活动受限的人体模型中,使用 VL 可显著提高插管成功率、缩短插管成功时间并限制 CROM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信