• Andreas Moritz, Johannes Prottengeier, and Joachim Schmidt.
• Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Krankenhausstrasse 12, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. Electronic address: andreas.moritz@kfa.imed.uni-erlangen.de.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Nov 1; 35 (11): 1639-1644.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a Xenon halogen with a light-emitting diode (LED) laryngoscope light handle in a difficult airway scenario, as well as in an inhalation injury airway scenario that combines a difficult airway and a limited view.MethodsWe recruited forty-two anesthetists into a randomized crossover trial. Each performed tracheal intubation (TI) with a Xenon halogen and a LED light handle in the two manikin scenarios. The primary endpoint was the "time to intubate". Other endpoints were the "time to vocal cords", the "time to ventilate", the rate of successful intubation, the number of intubation attempts, the Cormack-Lehane score, the number of optimization maneuvers, the number of audible dental click sounds indicating dental damage and subjective impressions.ResultsIn the difficult airway scenario, no significant differences in the recorded intubation times were observed. In the inhalation injury airway scenario, the intubation times were significantly shorter using the LED light handle. Regarding the subjective values, the LED illuminant enabled a significant better view and illumination of the oropharyngeal space and the vocal cords, in both manikin scenarios.ConclusionThe LED laryngoscope light handle did not affect the recorded intubation times in the simulated difficult airway scenario, but provided significant advantages in the inhalation injury airway scenario that combines a difficult airway with a limited view caused by a sooted pharynx. We therefore hypothesize, that the LED illuminant might be beneficial in the airway management of burn patients with severe inhalation injury.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

22 keywords...

hide…