McGrath MAC、AIRWAY SCOPE®和AceScope®视频喉镜在新手医疗保健提供者中的比较:一项随机交叉模拟研究

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Musashi Yahagi, Kyuma Omi, Yuichi Yaguchi
{"title":"McGrath MAC、AIRWAY SCOPE®和AceScope®视频喉镜在新手医疗保健提供者中的比较:一项随机交叉模拟研究","authors":"Musashi Yahagi, Kyuma Omi, Yuichi Yaguchi","doi":"10.1186/s12871-025-03094-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Video laryngoscopes are widely used for tracheal intubation, particularly in challenging airway scenarios. The McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE<sup>®</sup>, and AceScope<sup>®</sup> are popular video laryngoscopes with different design features. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and usability of these three devices in novice healthcare providers during simulated tracheal intubation scenarios employing a manikin.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty novice healthcare providers, including nurses and pharmacists, were enrolled in this randomized crossover study. Participants performed tracheal intubation using the McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE, and AceScope in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models. Primary outcomes were intubation success rate and time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included user preferences, device ease of use, and the incidence of dental injuries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AIRWAY SCOPE demonstrated the shortest intubation time in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models (14.90 ± 1.76 s and 23.80 ± 2.43 s, respectively), followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. All devices exhibited high success rates, and there were no significant differences in perceived difficulty among the three video laryngoscopes. The incidence of dental injuries was generally comparable among the devices. However, in the cervical spine immobilization model, the AceScope demonstrated a significantly higher rate of dental injuries compared to the McGrath MAC (p < 0.05), highlighting a potential concern for clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AIRWAY SCOPE was the most efficient video laryngoscope in terms of intubation time, followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. However, all devices showed high success rates and no significant differences in perceived difficulty. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings and investigate the impact of device-specific features on intubation outcomes and dental injury incidence.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Registration number: jRCT1030240598 ( https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422 ) The registration date of the clinical trial is January 8, 2025.UMIN000050394.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"212"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12023392/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE<sup>®</sup>, and AceScope<sup>®</sup> video laryngoscopes in novice healthcare providers: a randomized crossover simulation study.\",\"authors\":\"Musashi Yahagi, Kyuma Omi, Yuichi Yaguchi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12871-025-03094-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Video laryngoscopes are widely used for tracheal intubation, particularly in challenging airway scenarios. The McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE<sup>®</sup>, and AceScope<sup>®</sup> are popular video laryngoscopes with different design features. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and usability of these three devices in novice healthcare providers during simulated tracheal intubation scenarios employing a manikin.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty novice healthcare providers, including nurses and pharmacists, were enrolled in this randomized crossover study. Participants performed tracheal intubation using the McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE, and AceScope in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models. Primary outcomes were intubation success rate and time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included user preferences, device ease of use, and the incidence of dental injuries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AIRWAY SCOPE demonstrated the shortest intubation time in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models (14.90 ± 1.76 s and 23.80 ± 2.43 s, respectively), followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. All devices exhibited high success rates, and there were no significant differences in perceived difficulty among the three video laryngoscopes. The incidence of dental injuries was generally comparable among the devices. However, in the cervical spine immobilization model, the AceScope demonstrated a significantly higher rate of dental injuries compared to the McGrath MAC (p < 0.05), highlighting a potential concern for clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AIRWAY SCOPE was the most efficient video laryngoscope in terms of intubation time, followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. However, all devices showed high success rates and no significant differences in perceived difficulty. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings and investigate the impact of device-specific features on intubation outcomes and dental injury incidence.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Registration number: jRCT1030240598 ( https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422 ) The registration date of the clinical trial is January 8, 2025.UMIN000050394.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"212\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12023392/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-03094-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-03094-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:视频喉镜广泛用于气管插管,特别是在气道困难的情况下。McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE®和AceScope®是流行的视频喉镜,具有不同的设计特点。本研究的目的是比较这三种设备的有效性和可用性,新手医疗保健提供者在模拟气管插管场景中采用人体模型。方法:60名初级卫生保健提供者,包括护士和药剂师,被纳入这项随机交叉研究。在正常气道和颈椎固定模型中,参与者使用McGrath MAC、AIRWAY SCOPE和AceScope进行气管插管。主要观察结果为插管成功率和插管时间。次要结局包括使用者偏好、器械的易用性和牙齿损伤的发生率。结果:在正常气道和颈椎固定模型中,气管插管时间均最短(分别为14.90±1.76 s和23.80±2.43 s),其次为McGrath MAC和AceScope。所有设备均显示出高成功率,三种视频喉镜的感知难度无显著差异。在不同的器械中,牙齿损伤的发生率大致相当。然而,在颈椎固定模型中,与McGrath MAC相比,AceScope显示出明显更高的牙齿损伤率(p结论:就插管时间而言,气道镜是最有效的视频喉镜,其次是McGrath MAC和AceScope。然而,所有设备都显示出较高的成功率,并且感知难度没有显着差异。进一步的研究需要在临床环境中验证这些发现,并调查器械特定特征对插管结果和牙损伤发生率的影响。试验注册:注册号:jRCT1030240598 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422)临床试验注册日期:2025年1月8日umin000050394。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE®, and AceScope® video laryngoscopes in novice healthcare providers: a randomized crossover simulation study.

Background: Video laryngoscopes are widely used for tracheal intubation, particularly in challenging airway scenarios. The McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE®, and AceScope® are popular video laryngoscopes with different design features. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and usability of these three devices in novice healthcare providers during simulated tracheal intubation scenarios employing a manikin.

Methods: Sixty novice healthcare providers, including nurses and pharmacists, were enrolled in this randomized crossover study. Participants performed tracheal intubation using the McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE, and AceScope in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models. Primary outcomes were intubation success rate and time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included user preferences, device ease of use, and the incidence of dental injuries.

Results: The AIRWAY SCOPE demonstrated the shortest intubation time in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models (14.90 ± 1.76 s and 23.80 ± 2.43 s, respectively), followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. All devices exhibited high success rates, and there were no significant differences in perceived difficulty among the three video laryngoscopes. The incidence of dental injuries was generally comparable among the devices. However, in the cervical spine immobilization model, the AceScope demonstrated a significantly higher rate of dental injuries compared to the McGrath MAC (p < 0.05), highlighting a potential concern for clinical practice.

Conclusions: The AIRWAY SCOPE was the most efficient video laryngoscope in terms of intubation time, followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. However, all devices showed high success rates and no significant differences in perceived difficulty. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings and investigate the impact of device-specific features on intubation outcomes and dental injury incidence.

Trial registration: Registration number: jRCT1030240598 ( https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422 ) The registration date of the clinical trial is January 8, 2025.UMIN000050394.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
×
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