| Autor: |
Bacher V; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, Medical School, University of Pecs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary.; Medical Skills Education and Innovation Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Németh M; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, Medical School, University of Pecs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Rendeki S; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, Medical School, University of Pecs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary.; Medical Skills Education and Innovation Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Tornai B; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, Medical School, University of Pecs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Rozanovic M; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, Medical School, University of Pecs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Pankaczi A; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, Medical School, University of Pecs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Oláh J; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, Medical School, University of Pecs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Farkas J; Medical Skills Education and Innovation Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary.; Department of Anatomy, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Chikhi M; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, Medical School, University of Pecs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Schlégl Á; Medical Skills Education and Innovation Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary.; Department of Orthopedics, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Maróti P; Medical Skills Education and Innovation Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary.; 3D Printing & Visualization Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary., Nagy B; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, Medical School, University of Pecs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary.; Medical Skills Education and Innovation Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary. |
| Abstrakt: |
Background: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a cornerstone of airway management. The gold standard device for ETI is still the direct laryngoscope (DL). However, video laryngoscopes (VLs) are now also widely available and have several proven advantages. The VL technique has been included in the major airway management guidelines. During the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruption has raised demand for 3D-printed medical equipment, including 3D-printed VLs. However, studies on performance are only sparsely available; thus, we aimed to compare 3D-printed VLs to the DL and other VLs made with conventional manufacturing technology. Methods: Forty-eight medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students executed ETI with the DL, the King Vision ® (KV), the VividTrac ® (VT), the AirAngel Blade ® (AAB), and a custom-made 3D-printed VL (3DVL) on the Laerdal ® airway management trainer in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma, and user satisfaction. Results: The KV and VT are proved to be superior ( p < 0.05) to the DL in both scenarios. The 3DVL's performance was similar ( p > 0.05) or significantly better than that of the DL and mainly non-inferior ( p > 0.05) compared to the KV and VT in both scenarios. Regardless of the scenario, the AAB proved to be inferior ( p < 0.05) even to the DL in the majority of the variables. The differences between the devices were more pronounced in the difficult airway scenario. The user satisfaction scores were in concordance with the aforementioned performance of the scopes. Conclusions: Based upon our results, we cannot recommend the AAB over the DL, KV, or VT. However, as the 3DVL showed, 3D printing indeed can provide useful or even superior VLs, but prior to clinical use, meticulous evaluation might be recommended. |
