• Alan Tung and Donald E G Griesdale.
• Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1M9.
• J Clin Anesth. 2013 Dec 1;25(8):644-50.

Study ObjectiveTo compare the GlideScope Groove (GG) with conventional GlideScope videolaryngoscopy (GVL) and direct laryngoscopy (DL) on intubation times, intubation attempts, and glottic visualization of an airway mannequin by medical students.DesignRandomized crossover trial.SettingIntensive care unit of an academic tertiary-care hospital.Participants34 medical students with no airway management experience.MeasurementsEach participant received standardized video instruction on all three laryngoscopes and was given 10 minutes to practice with each device. The participants had two attempts using DL, and then had two attempts each with either the GG or GVL in random order.MeasurementsTime-to-intubate the mannequin in seconds was recorded. Secondary outcomes were Cormack-Lehane grade and number of intubation attempts, also recorded.Main ResultsThe median number of seconds required to successfully intubate the mannequin with DL, GVL, and GG were 17.4 seconds [interquartile range (IQR) 13.2 - 22.1)], 17.7 seconds (IQR 14.9 - 21.0), and 21.7 seconds (IQR 15.4 - 37.0), respectively. No differences in time-to-intubate was noted among the three devices (P = 0.45). A Cormack-Lehane grade 1 view was obtained for 25 of 34 participants (74%) with DL, 32 of 34 participants (94%) with GVL, and 34 of 34 participants (100%) with GG. First-attempt intubation success was 30 of 34 participants (88%) with DL, 34 of 34 participants (100%) with GVL, and 11 of 34 participants (32%) with GG. Using the GG, 6 of 24 participants (18%) required three attempts. More attempts were required for the GG than for DL (P < 0.001) or GVL (P < 0.001).ConclusionsGG was not superior to DL or GVL in time-to-intubate an airway mannequin.© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

31 keywords...

hide…