• Soh Teng Lye, Chen Mei Liaw, Edwin Seet, and Kwong Fah Koh.
• Department of Anaesthesia, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, 90 Yishun Central, Singapore. sohteng28@yahoo.com
• Singap Med J. 2013 Feb 1;54(2):64-8.

IntroductionIndirect laryngoscopes offer improved laryngeal view and higher success rates of intubation, particularly for difficult airways. We hypothesised that: (a) the time required for intubation, overall success rates and ease of intubation with indirect laryngoscopes would be better than with the Macintosh laryngoscope; and (b) novices may achieve higher success rates and intubate faster using indirect laryngoscopes.MethodsIn a cross-sectional observational study, 13 novices and 13 skilled anaesthetists were recruited. Participants were compared when intubating a manikin simulating normal and difficult airway scenarios using the Macintosh laryngoscope, Pentax Airway Scope® (AWS), C-MAC[TM] and Bonfils intubation fibrescope.ResultsThere was no significant difference in intubation success rates between the groups. Skilled anaesthetists intubated faster than novices with Pentax AWS in the difficult airway scenario (22 s vs. 33 s, p = 0.047). The mean intubation times for C-MAC and Pentax AWS were shorter than for the Macintosh laryngoscope and Bonfils intubation fibrescope in both difficult (C-MAC: 24 s, Pentax AWS: 28 s, Macintosh: 80 s, Bonfils: 61 s; p < 0.001) and normal (C-MAC: 17 s, Pentax AWS: 19 s, Macintosh: 39 s, Bonfils: 38 s; p = 0.002) airway scenarios.ConclusionWe found that intubation success was more than 85% with all indirect laryngoscopes compared to 69% for the Macintosh laryngoscope. Both C-MAC and Pentax AWS achieved faster intubation times compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope and Bonfils intubation fibroscope for both airway scenarios. Skilled anaesthetists were 33% faster than novices when intubating a difficult airway using Pentax AWS.

20 keywords...

hide…