Advertisement

Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 91–97 | Cite as

Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy and C-MAC D-Blade video laryngoscope intubation by prehospital emergency health workers: a simulation study

  • Ahmet YildirimEmail author
  • Hasan A. Kiraz
  • İbrahim Ağaoğlu
  • Okhan Akdur
EM - ORIGINAL

Abstract

The aim of the this study is to evaluate the intubation success rates of emergency medical technicians using a Macintosh laryngoscope (ML), McCoy laryngoscope (MCL), and C MAC D-Blade (CMDB) video laryngoscope on manikin models with immobilized cervical spines. This randomized crossover study included 40 EMTs with at least 2 years’ active service in ambulances. All participating technicians completed intubations in three scenarios—a normal airway model, a rigid cervical collar model, and a manual in-line cervical stabilization model—with three different laryngoscopes. The scenario and laryngoscope model were determined randomly. We recorded the scenario, laryngoscope method, intubation time in seconds, tooth pressure, and intubation on a previously prepared study form. We performed Friedman tests to determine whether there is a significant change in the intubation success rate, duration of tracheal intubation, tooth pressure, and visual analog scale scores due to violations of parametric test assumptions. We performed the Wilcoxon test to determine the significance of pairwise differences for multiple comparisons. An overall 5 % type I error level was used to infer statistical significance. We considered a p value of less than 0.05 statistically significant. The CMDB and MCL success rates were significantly higher than the ML rates in all scenario models (p < 0.05). The CMDB intubation duration was significantly shorter when compared with ML and MCL in all models. CMDB and MCL may provide an easier, faster intubation by prehospital emergency health care workers in patients with immobilized cervical spines.

Keywords

Intubation Prehospital Laryngoscope Video Manikin 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Şule Yıldırım for providing statistical analysis and Dr. Şükrü Kabaş for invaluable logistical support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding source

No external funding was secured for this study.

Financial disclosure

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Statement of human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Hastings RH, Kelley SD (1993) Neurologic deterioration associated with airway management in a cervical spine-injured patient. Anesthesiology 78:580–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williamson JA, Webb RK, Szekely S, Gillies ER, Dreosti AV (1993) The Australian Incident Monito-ring Study. Difficult intubation: an analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesth Intensiv Care 21(5):602–607Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shiga T, Wajima Z, Inoue T, Sakamoto A (2005) Predicting difficult intubation in apparently normal patients: a meta-analysis of bedside screening test performance. Anesthesiology 103:429–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Samsoon GL, Young JR (1987) Difficult tracheal intubation: a retrospective study. Anaesthesia 42:487–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mort TC (2004) Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg 99:607–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garza AG, Gratton MC, Coontz D, Noble E, Ma OJ (2003) Effect of paramedic experience on orotracheal intubation success rates. J Emerg Med 25(3):251–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diggs LA, Yusuf JE, De Leo G (2014) An update on out-of-hospital airway management in the United States. Resuscitation 85(7):885–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mort TC (2005) Esophageal intubation with indirect clinical tests during emergency tracheal intubation: a report on patient morbidity. J Clin Anesth 17:255–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jarvis JL, McClure SF, Johns D (2015) EMS intubation improves with king vision video laryngoscopy. Prehosp Emerg Care 19(4):482–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Healy DW, Maties Q, Hovord D, Kheterpal S (2012) A systematic review of the role of videolarygoscopy in succesful orotracheal intubation. BMC Anesthesiol 12:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howard-Quijano KJ, Huang YM, Matevosian R, Kaplan MB, Steadman RH (2008) Video-assisted instruction improves the success rate for tracheal intubation by novices. Br J Anaesth 101(4):568–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK (1993) The levering laryngoscope. Anesthesia 48:516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kılıçaslan A, Topal A, Erol A, Uzun ST (2014) Comparison of the C-MAC D-Blade, conventional C-MAC, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in simulated easy and difficult airways. Turk J Anaesth Reanim 42:182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Serocki G, Neumann T, Scharf E, Dörges V, Cavus E (2013) Indirect videolaryngoscopy with C-MAC D-Blade and GlideScope: a randomized, controlled comparison in patients with suspected difficult airways. Minerva Anestesiol 79:121–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bilgin H, Bozkurt M (2006) Tracheal intubation using the ILMA, C-Trach or McCoy laryngoscope in patients with simulated cervical spine injury. Anesthesia 61:685–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McElwain J, Malik MA, Harte BH, Flynn NM, Laffey JG (2010) Comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh, Glidescope, and Airtraq laryngoscopes in easy and difficult laryngoscopy scenarios in manikins. Anaesthesia 65:483–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burdett E, Ross-Anderson DJ, Makepeace J, Bassett PA, Clarke SG, Mitchell V (2011) Randomized controlled trial of the A.P. Advance, McGrath, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in normal and difficult intubation scenarios: a manikin study. Br J Anaesth 107:983–988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malik MA, O’Donoghue C, Carney J, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG (2009) Comparison of the Glidescope, the Pentax AWS, and the Truview EVO2 with the Macintosh laryngoscope in experienced anaesthetists: a manikin study. Br J Anaesth 102:128–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cavus E, Neumann T, Doerges V, Moeller T, Scharf E, Wagner K et al (2011) First clinical evaluation of the C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope during routine and difficult intubation. Anesth Analg 112:382–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gabbott DA (1996) Laryngoscopy using the McCoy laryngoscope after application of a cervical collar. Anesthesia 51:812–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McElwain J, Laffey JG (2011) Comparison of the C-MAC, Airtraq, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients undergoing tracheal intubation with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth 107:258–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SIMI 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmet Yildirim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hasan A. Kiraz
    • 2
  • İbrahim Ağaoğlu
    • 1
  • Okhan Akdur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of MedicineÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityKepezTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of MedicineÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityÇanakkaleTurkey

Personalised recommendations