• Zehra İpek Arslan, Canan Turna, Nevin Esra Gümüş, Kamil Toker, and Mine Solak.
• Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Kocaeli University School of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey.
• Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2016 Apr 1; 44 (2): 71-5.

ObjectiveGlidescope and Airtraq were designed for facilitating intubation and for teaching regarding the airway anatomy. We aimed to evaluate their efficacy in normal airway, tongue oedema and face-to-face orotracheal intubation models when used by novice personnel.MethodsAfter the local human research ethics committee approval, 36 medical students who were in the beginning of their third year were enrolled in this study. After watching a video regarding intubation using one of these devices, the students intubated a paediatric manikin with a Glidescope or Airtraq via the normal airway, tongue oedema and face-to-face approach.ResultsAlthough the insertion and intubation times were similar among the groups, the intubation success rate of the Glidescope was higher in the normal airway (100% vs 67%) and tongue oedema (89% vs. 50%) compared with the Airtraq (p=0.008 and p=0.009). The success rates with the paediatric manikin by the face-to-face approach were similar among the groups (50%) (p=0.7). The need for manoeuvres in the Glidescope was lower in the normal and tongue oedema models (p=0.02 and p=0.002). In addition, oesophageal intubation was low in the control and tongue oedema models with the Glidescope (p=0.03 and p<0.001).ConclusionNovice personnel could more easily intubate the trachea with the Glidescope than with the Airtraq. Intubation with the Glidescope was superior to that with the Airtraq in the normal and tongue oedema models. The face-to-face intubation success rates were both low with both the Glidescope and Airtraq groups.

3 keywords...

hide…