alexa GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy in the Simulated Difficult Airway: Bougie vs Standard Stylet.
Anesthesiology

Anesthesiology

Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research

Author(s): Nielsen AA, Hope CB, Bair AE

Abstract Share this page

Abstract OBJECTIVE: GlideScope(®) videolaryngoscopy (GVL) has been shown to improve visualization of the glottis compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL). However, due to the angle of approach to the glottis, intubation can still be challenging. We hypothesized that novice GVL users would be able to intubate faster and easier using an airway introducer (frequently known as a bougie) than with a standard intubating stylet. METHODS: Intubations were performed on a human airway simulator with settings for easy and difficult airways. Participants were emergency medicine (EM) residents or faculty (n=21) who were novice GVL users. Participants were intubated a total of eight times (four GVL, four DL) using either a bougie or an intubating stylet. We recorded time to intubate (TTI) and difficulty rating using a visual analog scale (VAS) and non-parametric statistical methods for analysis. We reported medians with interquartile range (IQR). RESULTS: The median TTI with difficult airway settings and the bougie-GVL was 76 seconds (IQR 50, 102) versus 64 seconds (IQR 50.5, 125), p=0.76 for the stylet-GVL combination. The median VAS difficulty score, on difficult airway settings, for the bougie-GVL was 5 cm (IQR 3.3, 8.0) versus 6.2 cm (IQR 5.0, 7.5) with the stylet-GVL, p=0.53. CONCLUSION: Among novices using GVL for simulated difficult airway management, there was no benefit, in terms of speed or ease of intubation, by using the bougie over the standard stylet.
This article was published in West J Emerg Med and referenced in Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

OMICS International Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

agrifoodaquavet@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

clinical_biochem@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

business@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

chemicaleng_chemistry@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

environmentalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

engineering@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

generalsci_healthcare@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

genetics_molbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

immuno_microbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

omics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

materialsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

mathematics_physics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

medical@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

neuro_psychology@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

pharma@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

social_politicalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version