Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of a Pediatric Simulator by Novice Physicians

Objective. To compare novice clinicians’ performance using GlideScope videolaryngoscopy (GVL) to direct laryngoscopy (DL). Methods. This was a prospective, randomized crossover study. Incoming pediatric interns intubated pediatric simulators in four normal and difficult airway scenarios with GVL and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Joni E. Rabiner, Marc Auerbach, Jeffrey R. Avner, Dina Daswani, Hnin Khine
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2013-01-01
Series:Emergency Medicine International
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/407547
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849306833173348352
author Joni E. Rabiner
Marc Auerbach
Jeffrey R. Avner
Dina Daswani
Hnin Khine
author_facet Joni E. Rabiner
Marc Auerbach
Jeffrey R. Avner
Dina Daswani
Hnin Khine
author_sort Joni E. Rabiner
collection DOAJ
description Objective. To compare novice clinicians’ performance using GlideScope videolaryngoscopy (GVL) to direct laryngoscopy (DL). Methods. This was a prospective, randomized crossover study. Incoming pediatric interns intubated pediatric simulators in four normal and difficult airway scenarios with GVL and DL. Primary outcomes included time to intubation and rate of successful intubation. Interns rated their satisfaction of the devices and chose the preferred device. Results. Twenty-five interns were included. In the normal airway scenario, there were no differences in mean time for intubation with GVL or DL (61.4 versus 67.4 seconds, ) or number of successful intubations (19 versus 18, ). In the difficult airway scenario, interns took longer to intubate with GVL than DL (87.7 versus 61.3 seconds, ), but there were no differences in successful intubations (14 versus 15, ). There was a trend towards higher satisfaction for GVL than DL (7.3 versus 6.4, ), and GVL was chosen as the preferred device by a majority of interns (17/25, 68%). Conclusions. For novice clinicians, GVL does not improve time to intubation or intubation success rates in a pediatric simulator model of normal and difficult airway scenarios. Still, these novice clinicians overall preferred GVL.
format Article
id doaj-art-1e955999e12d49629a32ca23b74ccc0f
institution Kabale University
issn 2090-2840
2090-2859
language English
publishDate 2013-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Emergency Medicine International
spelling doaj-art-1e955999e12d49629a32ca23b74ccc0f2025-08-20T03:54:57ZengWileyEmergency Medicine International2090-28402090-28592013-01-01201310.1155/2013/407547407547Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of a Pediatric Simulator by Novice PhysiciansJoni E. Rabiner0Marc Auerbach1Jeffrey R. Avner2Dina Daswani3Hnin Khine4Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 3315 Rochambeau Avenue, Bronx, NY 10467, USADepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, 100 York Street, Suite 1F, New Haven, CT 06511, USADepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 3315 Rochambeau Avenue, Bronx, NY 10467, USADepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 3315 Rochambeau Avenue, Bronx, NY 10467, USADepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 3315 Rochambeau Avenue, Bronx, NY 10467, USAObjective. To compare novice clinicians’ performance using GlideScope videolaryngoscopy (GVL) to direct laryngoscopy (DL). Methods. This was a prospective, randomized crossover study. Incoming pediatric interns intubated pediatric simulators in four normal and difficult airway scenarios with GVL and DL. Primary outcomes included time to intubation and rate of successful intubation. Interns rated their satisfaction of the devices and chose the preferred device. Results. Twenty-five interns were included. In the normal airway scenario, there were no differences in mean time for intubation with GVL or DL (61.4 versus 67.4 seconds, ) or number of successful intubations (19 versus 18, ). In the difficult airway scenario, interns took longer to intubate with GVL than DL (87.7 versus 61.3 seconds, ), but there were no differences in successful intubations (14 versus 15, ). There was a trend towards higher satisfaction for GVL than DL (7.3 versus 6.4, ), and GVL was chosen as the preferred device by a majority of interns (17/25, 68%). Conclusions. For novice clinicians, GVL does not improve time to intubation or intubation success rates in a pediatric simulator model of normal and difficult airway scenarios. Still, these novice clinicians overall preferred GVL.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/407547
spellingShingle Joni E. Rabiner
Marc Auerbach
Jeffrey R. Avner
Dina Daswani
Hnin Khine
Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of a Pediatric Simulator by Novice Physicians
Emergency Medicine International
title Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of a Pediatric Simulator by Novice Physicians
title_full Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of a Pediatric Simulator by Novice Physicians
title_fullStr Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of a Pediatric Simulator by Novice Physicians
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of a Pediatric Simulator by Novice Physicians
title_short Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of a Pediatric Simulator by Novice Physicians
title_sort comparison of glidescope videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of a pediatric simulator by novice physicians
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/407547
work_keys_str_mv AT jonierabiner comparisonofglidescopevideolaryngoscopytodirectlaryngoscopyforintubationofapediatricsimulatorbynovicephysicians
AT marcauerbach comparisonofglidescopevideolaryngoscopytodirectlaryngoscopyforintubationofapediatricsimulatorbynovicephysicians
AT jeffreyravner comparisonofglidescopevideolaryngoscopytodirectlaryngoscopyforintubationofapediatricsimulatorbynovicephysicians
AT dinadaswani comparisonofglidescopevideolaryngoscopytodirectlaryngoscopyforintubationofapediatricsimulatorbynovicephysicians
AT hninkhine comparisonofglidescopevideolaryngoscopytodirectlaryngoscopyforintubationofapediatricsimulatorbynovicephysicians