Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Endotracheal Intubation with Videolaryngoscopes: McGrathMAC, UESCOPE, and Airtraq by Young Anesthesiology Residents - Randomized, Controlled, Blinded Crossover Study.

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Advances in Medical Education and Practice Pub Date : 2024-12-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S486331
Pawel Ratajczyk, Przemyslaw Kluj, Krzysztof Wasiak, Jeremi Strzalek, Karolina Kolodziejska, Tomasz Gaszynski
{"title":"Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Endotracheal Intubation with Videolaryngoscopes: McGrathMAC, UESCOPE, and Airtraq by Young Anesthesiology Residents - Randomized, Controlled, Blinded Crossover Study.","authors":"Pawel Ratajczyk, Przemyslaw Kluj, Krzysztof Wasiak, Jeremi Strzalek, Karolina Kolodziejska, Tomasz Gaszynski","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S486331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Videolaryngoscopes increased the safety of patients requiring endotracheal intubation. Their particular beneficiaries are healthcare providers inexperienced in intubation. We compared the learning curve of McGrath, UESCOPE, and Airtraq VLs among the first-year anesthesiology residents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixteen residents were qualified for the study, none of whom has ever before used any VL nor had any experience with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The study was conducted during anesthesia without anticipated intubation difficulties and included 288 adult patients with BMI <25 and ASA ≤ II, without visible intubation difficulties. It was a randomized, controlled, and blinded crossover study. Each resident performed six intubations with a given VL in randomized order.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics. In McGrath there was observed significant improvement of intubation time, confirmed intubation time, ease, POGO scale, effective intubation, thyroid pressure application, and intubation trauma. Intubation efficacy increased from 12 (75%) at first attempt, to 16 (100%) during third and following attempts. Residents used pressure 6 times (38%) during first attempt and 7 times (44%) during second attempt, and 1 (6%) at last attempt. McGrath traumatism was noticed in 4 (25%) patients at first two attempts, none during third and following attempts. In Airtraq, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, ease, effective intubation, and application of pressure to thyroid cartilage. Intubation efficacy increased from 10 (62%) during the first to 16 (100%) during the following attempts. Thyroid pressure was applied 7 times (44%) during first intubation and 0 times during the last two attempts. In the case of UESCOPE VL, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, and ease.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results demonstrated that Airtraq VL having the best learning curve, and UESCOPE having the best first-time use. The results require confirmation in a larger study group. This study was approved on 14 November 2023 by the Medical University of Lodz Bioethics Committee (ref: RNN/160/23/KE).</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"15 ","pages":"1299-1312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11682673/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S486331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Videolaryngoscopes increased the safety of patients requiring endotracheal intubation. Their particular beneficiaries are healthcare providers inexperienced in intubation. We compared the learning curve of McGrath, UESCOPE, and Airtraq VLs among the first-year anesthesiology residents.

Methods: Sixteen residents were qualified for the study, none of whom has ever before used any VL nor had any experience with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The study was conducted during anesthesia without anticipated intubation difficulties and included 288 adult patients with BMI <25 and ASA ≤ II, without visible intubation difficulties. It was a randomized, controlled, and blinded crossover study. Each resident performed six intubations with a given VL in randomized order.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics. In McGrath there was observed significant improvement of intubation time, confirmed intubation time, ease, POGO scale, effective intubation, thyroid pressure application, and intubation trauma. Intubation efficacy increased from 12 (75%) at first attempt, to 16 (100%) during third and following attempts. Residents used pressure 6 times (38%) during first attempt and 7 times (44%) during second attempt, and 1 (6%) at last attempt. McGrath traumatism was noticed in 4 (25%) patients at first two attempts, none during third and following attempts. In Airtraq, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, ease, effective intubation, and application of pressure to thyroid cartilage. Intubation efficacy increased from 10 (62%) during the first to 16 (100%) during the following attempts. Thyroid pressure was applied 7 times (44%) during first intubation and 0 times during the last two attempts. In the case of UESCOPE VL, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, and ease.

Conclusion: Results demonstrated that Airtraq VL having the best learning curve, and UESCOPE having the best first-time use. The results require confirmation in a larger study group. This study was approved on 14 November 2023 by the Medical University of Lodz Bioethics Committee (ref: RNN/160/23/KE).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估使用视频喉镜进行气管插管的学习曲线:年轻麻醉科住院医师对 McGrathMAC、UESCOPE 和 Airtraq 的学习曲线评估 - 随机、对照、盲法交叉研究。
背景:视频喉镜增加了需要气管插管患者的安全性。他们的特别受益者是缺乏插管经验的医疗保健提供者。我们比较了第一年麻醉科住院医师使用McGrath、escope和Airtraq VLs的学习曲线。方法:16名符合研究条件的住院医师,他们都没有使用过VL,也没有使用Macintosh喉镜的经验。本研究在麻醉期间进行,没有预期的插管困难,纳入288例BMI的成年患者。结果:患者特征无统计学差异。McGrath组在插管时间、确认插管时间、易用性、POGO评分、有效插管、甲状腺压力应用和插管创伤方面均有显著改善。插管有效率从第一次12例(75%)增加到第三次及以后16例(100%)。居民第一次使用压力6次(38%),第二次使用压力7次(44%),最后一次使用压力1次(6%)。4例(25%)患者在前两次尝试中发现McGrath创伤,在第三次及之后的尝试中没有发现。在Airtraq中,我们观察到插管时间、确认插管时间、使用的力度、轻松程度、有效插管以及对甲状腺软骨施加压力的显著改善。插管有效率从第一次的10例(62%)增加到随后的16例(100%)。首次插管时施加甲状腺压7次(44%),后两次插管时施加0次。在UESCOPE VL病例中,我们观察到插管时间、确认插管时间、使用力度和轻松程度的显著改善。结论:Airtraq VL具有最佳的学习曲线,而UESCOPE具有最佳的首次使用效果。这一结果需要在更大的研究小组中得到证实。这项研究于2023年11月14日由罗兹医科大学生物伦理委员会批准(参考:RNN/160/23/KE)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Advances in Medical Education and Practice EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
189
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Impact of Simulation-Based Surgical Training in Laparoscopy on Satisfaction Level and Proficiency in Surgical Skills. Challenges and Difficulties During the Nursing Internship Program Using 5 Domains: A Cross-Sectional Study. Application of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content in Medical Examinations. Predictive Validity of Preclerkship Performance Metrics on USMLE Step 2 CK Outcomes in the Step 1 Pass/Fail Era. Career Planning in Medical Students Rotating Through Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Social Support, and Personal Participation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1