To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription. Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.
Fig. 1
Res-Q-Scope II with battery-operated LCD screen on handle.
Abstract
Objective
To compare average time to successful intubation and success rates using direct laryngoscopy (DL) with those using a battery-operated videoscope (VS) in uncomplicated manikin intubations.
Methods
Forty-four paramedics and emergency medicine faculty and residents received training with DL and VS. Participants performed 3 timed trials using each device. A single group repeated-measures analysis of variance for average time measurements was performed.
Results
Grouping physicians and paramedics, mean time to successful intubation for DL was 14.6 seconds (SD, 4.3 seconds) and for VS was 25.9 seconds (SD, 9.2 seconds; P < .001). All attempts were successful with both devices. A secondary measure compared intubation times for physicians and paramedics on both devices. For DL, mean time to successful intubation for physicians was 13.2 seconds (SD, 3.8 seconds) and for paramedics, 15.9 seconds (SD, 4.3 seconds; P > .43). For VS, mean time for physicians was 26.0 seconds (SD, 10.0 seconds) and for paramedics, 25.7 seconds (SD, 8.6 seconds; P > .43).
Conclusions
Intubation with DL in uncomplicated manikin airways was faster than with VS (P < .001). Success rates were equal.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Purchase access to this article
Claim Access
If you are a current subscriber with Society Membership or an Account Number, claim your access now.
Subscribe to this title
Purchase a subscription to gain access to this and all other articles in this journal.
Institutional Access
Visit ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
☆RES-Q-TECH provided one RES-Q-SCOPEII laryngoscope for our study at no charge. We received no financial compensation from any source, and the company does not know the results of our study.
☆☆The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the US Air Force, Department of Defense, or the US government.
