• A Fourneret-Vivier, A Rousseau, J Shum, S Frenea, J M Fargnoli, and M R Mallaret.
• Unité d'hygiène hospitalière, CHU, BP 217, 38043 Grenoble cedex, France.
• Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2004 Jul 1;23(7):694-9.

ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility of switching disposable laryngoscope blades and to compare the disposable blades available on the market to reusable blades within the context of a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.Study DesignComparative prospective study.Material And MethodsStudy conducted on patients intubated for surgical procedures in all operating theatres of a university hospital. The anaesthetic practitioner filled in an assessment form giving a score on nine criteria for each blade used. Data were recorded on Epi Info software. Satisfaction scores of each criterion were compared for both disposable blades and reusable blades.ResultsSix brands of blades were tested with 225 blades. Disposable blades were evaluated as inferior to the reusable blades in 62% of cases. Two blades were reported as more satisfactory: the 670166 Rusch-Pilling and Vital View blades.ConclusionThe disposable blades were not easily accepted by the anaesthetists particularly for difficult intubations, which is why reusable blades should not be totally removed from practice. Single-use blades proposed by different manufacturers are not identical. We chose 670166 Rusch-Pilling blades, the best adapted to our institution. The switch to disposable blades would require that blade manufacturers improve the quality of the blades.

12 keywords...

hide…