Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Alternatives to endotracheal intubation (ETI) are required when access to the cranial end of the patient is restricted. In this study, the success rate and time duration of standard intubation techniques were compared with two differ...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2011-06-01
|
| Series: | Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine |
| Online Access: | http://www.sjtrem.com/content/19/1/36 |
| _version_ | 1811313496305958912 |
|---|---|
| author | Sandberg Mårten Nakstad Anders R |
| author_facet | Sandberg Mårten Nakstad Anders R |
| author_sort | Sandberg Mårten |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Alternatives to endotracheal intubation (ETI) are required when access to the cranial end of the patient is restricted. In this study, the success rate and time duration of standard intubation techniques were compared with two different supraglottic devices. Two different manikins were used for the study, and the training effect was studied when the same manikin was repeatedly used.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty anaesthesiologists from the Air Ambulance Department used iGEL<sup>™</sup>, laryngeal tube LTSII<sup>™ </sup>and Macintosh laryngoscopes in two scenarios with either unrestricted (scenario A) or restricted (scenario B) access to the cranial end of the manikin. Different manikins were used for ETI and placement of the supraglottic devices. The technique selected by the physicians, the success rates and the times to completion were the primary outcomes measured. A secondary outcome of the study was an evaluation of the learning effect of using the same manikin or device several times.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In scenario A, all anaesthesiologists secured an airway using each device within the maximum time limit of 60 seconds. In scenario B, all physicians secured the airway on the first attempt with the supraglottic devices and 16 (80%) successfully performed an ETI with either the Macintosh laryngoscope (n = 13, 65%) or with digital technique (n = 3, 15%). It took significantly longer to perform ETI (mean time 28.0 sec +/- 13.0) than to secure an airway with the supraglottic devices (iGel™: mean 12.3 sec +/- 3.6, LTSII™: mean 10.6 sec +/- 3.2). When comparing the mean time required for the two scenarios for each supraglottic device, there was a reduction in time for scenario B (significant for LTSII<sup>™</sup>: 12.1 versus 10.6 seconds, p = 0.014). This may be due to a training effect using same manikin and device several times.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The amount of time used to secure an airway with supraglottic devices was low for both scenarios, while classic ETI was time consuming and had a low success rate in the simulated restricted access condition. This study also demonstrates that there is a substantial training effect when simulating airway management with airway manikins. This effect must be considered when performing future studies.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T10:55:57Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d2675b2e431f4ba0978cb30e8ff79d31 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1757-7241 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T10:55:57Z |
| publishDate | 2011-06-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-d2675b2e431f4ba0978cb30e8ff79d312022-12-22T02:49:32ZengBMCScandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine1757-72412011-06-011913610.1186/1757-7241-19-36Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?Sandberg MårtenNakstad Anders R<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Alternatives to endotracheal intubation (ETI) are required when access to the cranial end of the patient is restricted. In this study, the success rate and time duration of standard intubation techniques were compared with two different supraglottic devices. Two different manikins were used for the study, and the training effect was studied when the same manikin was repeatedly used.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty anaesthesiologists from the Air Ambulance Department used iGEL<sup>™</sup>, laryngeal tube LTSII<sup>™ </sup>and Macintosh laryngoscopes in two scenarios with either unrestricted (scenario A) or restricted (scenario B) access to the cranial end of the manikin. Different manikins were used for ETI and placement of the supraglottic devices. The technique selected by the physicians, the success rates and the times to completion were the primary outcomes measured. A secondary outcome of the study was an evaluation of the learning effect of using the same manikin or device several times.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In scenario A, all anaesthesiologists secured an airway using each device within the maximum time limit of 60 seconds. In scenario B, all physicians secured the airway on the first attempt with the supraglottic devices and 16 (80%) successfully performed an ETI with either the Macintosh laryngoscope (n = 13, 65%) or with digital technique (n = 3, 15%). It took significantly longer to perform ETI (mean time 28.0 sec +/- 13.0) than to secure an airway with the supraglottic devices (iGel™: mean 12.3 sec +/- 3.6, LTSII™: mean 10.6 sec +/- 3.2). When comparing the mean time required for the two scenarios for each supraglottic device, there was a reduction in time for scenario B (significant for LTSII<sup>™</sup>: 12.1 versus 10.6 seconds, p = 0.014). This may be due to a training effect using same manikin and device several times.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The amount of time used to secure an airway with supraglottic devices was low for both scenarios, while classic ETI was time consuming and had a low success rate in the simulated restricted access condition. This study also demonstrates that there is a substantial training effect when simulating airway management with airway manikins. This effect must be considered when performing future studies.</p>http://www.sjtrem.com/content/19/1/36 |
| spellingShingle | Sandberg Mårten Nakstad Anders R Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data? Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine |
| title | Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data? |
| title_full | Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data? |
| title_fullStr | Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data? |
| title_short | Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data? |
| title_sort | airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient can manikin based studies provide relevant data |
| url | http://www.sjtrem.com/content/19/1/36 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sandbergmarten airwaymanagementinsimulatedrestrictedaccesstoapatientcanmanikinbasedstudiesproviderelevantdata AT nakstadandersr airwaymanagementinsimulatedrestrictedaccesstoapatientcanmanikinbasedstudiesproviderelevantdata |