A Manikin Study to Compare Video‐Optical Intubation Stylet versus Macintosh Laryngoscope Used by Novice in Normal and Simulated Difficult Airway Intubation

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare Macintosh laryngoscope with video‐optical intubation stylet on rates and time durations of successful tracheal intubation in normal and simulated difficult airway.DesignCrossover experimental study.SettingIntubation training laboratory.MethodsA group of novices (58 medical students) attempted intubation on manikin under normal and simulated difficult airway (grade 3 larygnoscopic view) settings using both Macintosh laryngoscope and video‐optical intubation stylet. The success rate, duration to intubate and occurrence of complications (oesophageal intubation and incisor breakage) when using the two different devices were measured and compared. The time results were analysed by paired t‐test and categorical results by chi square test or Fisher's exact test.ResultsThe success rate to intubate difficult airway using video‐optical intubation stylet (0.92) was significantly higher than using Macintosh laryngoscope (0.59) (p=0.002). The mean time taken to intubate difficult airway using video‐optical intubation stylet was significantly shorter than using Macintosh laryngoscope by 10.90 seconds (p=0.004). Oesophageal intubation rate was significantly higher when using Macintosh laryngoscope to intubate difficult airway compared to video‐optical intubation stylet (p=0.002). There was no significant difference on the rate of incisor breakage between the two instruments.ConclusionsNovice can learn to use both Macintosh laryngoscope and video‐optical intubation stylet to intubate successfully after a short training. Video‐optical intubation stylet is an effective “Plan B” instrument because it shortens the duration and increases the rate of successful intubation in difficult airway situations.