• Resuscitation · Oct 2012

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of GlideScope(®) versus Macintosh laryngoscope for the removal of a hypopharyngeal foreign body: a randomized cross-over cadaver study.

    • Sang Mo Je, Min Joung Kim, Sung Phil Chung, and Hyun Soo Chung.
    • Department of Emergency Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
    • Resuscitation. 2012 Oct 1;83(10):1277-80.

    ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether GlideScope(®) is an effective and acceptable method for the removal of a hypopharyngeal foreign body.MethodsThis was a prospective study conducted in 28 first year emergency residents with little prior airway management experience. Participants extracted hypopharyngeal foreign bodies using a Macintosh laryngoscope and GlideScope(®) with Magill and Sponge forceps. The primary endpoints were extraction time and success rate with each device. Participant preferences were also assessed.ResultsThe cumulative success rate in relation to time to extraction was significantly higher with the Macintosh laryngoscope than with the GlideScope(®) (p<0.001) regardless of the extraction device. Significantly fewer attempts were required for the first successful extraction with the Macintosh laryngoscope versus GlideScope(®) with Magill forceps (p=<0.001) and Sponge forceps (p=<0.001). The time for successful foreign body extraction using GlideScope(®) was significantly lower when using Magill (median 46 s, IQR 28-75 s) forceps than Sponge forceps (median 79 s, IQR 41-88 s).ConclusionsIn this cadaver model, the Macintosh laryngoscope appeared to be more efficient and preferred than GlideScope(®) for extracting hypopharyngeal airway foreign bodies that are associated with fatal asphyxiation.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…