• Dawid Aleksandrowicz and Tomasz Gaszyński.
• London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Anaesthetics Department, Northwick Park Hospital, Londres, Reino Unido.
• Emergencias. 2018 Jun 1; 30 (3): 186-189.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the intubating laryngeal mask (iLM) airway and the new intubating laryngeal tube (iLTS-D) in use by residents with minimal previous intubation experience during simulated conditions of reduced cervical spine mobility.Material And MethodsThirty first-year residents in anesthesiology participated in the study (18 women). All participants had minimal intubation experience (fewer than 10 previously performed intubations) and were novices in the specialty. Both devices were used by each participant after random assignment of order. We recorded the time required to insert the device and start to ventilate through it (T1) and the time from insertion and intubation to successful ventilation (T2). Efficacy of intubation and each resident's assessment of ease of use were also assessed.Observational study using biomechanical inertial sensors to detect movement in the spinal column during removal of helmets.ResultsThe residents' mean (SD) T1 values were similar for the 2 devices (iLMA, 15.3 [5.5] seconds; iLTS-D, 15.4 [5.5] seconds; P=.938). T2 was shorter with the iLTS-D (25.4 [8.6] seconds vs 31.9 [8.8] seconds with the iLMA; P=.005). There were no failed intubation attempts with the iLTS-D.ConclusionThe new iLTS-D may be a good alternative to the iLMA because a patient can be intubated and successfully ventilated in less time. The rate of successful intubation is also better with the iLTS-D.

28 keywords...

hide…