Why USB-endoscope laryngoscopy is as effective as video laryngoscopy

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Jun 28, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25011/cim.v43i2.33956

Main Article Content

Meliha Findik, MD
Balikesir University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency, Balikesir, Turkey
Afsin E Kayipmaz, MD
Ankara City Hospital, Department of Emergency, Ankara, Turkey
Cemil Kavalci, MD
Ankara Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency, Ankara, Turkey
Tugce Sencelikel
Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biostatistics, Ankara, Turkey
Murat Muratoglu, MD
Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency, Ankara, Turkey
Aysegul Akcebe, MD
Kiziltepe State Hospital, Department of Emergency, Mardin, Turkey
Bulent Gungorer, MD
Ankara City Hospital, Department of Emergency, Ankara, Turkey
Gulsum Kavalci, MD
Yenimahalle Training and Research Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of a low-cost custom-made universal serial
bus (USB) endoscope laryngoscope for intubation with a direct laryngoscope
and a high-cost video laryngoscope in a mannequin study.



Methods: We used one intubation simulator model (mannequin) in our study.
A USB endoscope was mounted to the direct laryngoscope as a custom-made
USB endoscope laryngoscope (USB-L). We used a video laryngoscope
(Glidescope®, Verathon, USA) and a direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for
comparison. Intubation time and the correct placement of the tube were
measured. Intubations were performed by two operators and results were
compared.



Results: We found a statistically significant difference between the video and
direct laryngoscope groups (p < 0.001), as well as between the USB-L and
direct laryngoscope groups (p = 0.001) for Operator 1. For Operator 2, there
was a statistically significant difference between the video laryngoscope group
and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.022); however, we did not find a
significant difference between the USB-L group and the direct laryngoscope
group (p = 0.154). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between
the USB-L and video laryngoscope groups for either operator (p=0.347 for
Operator 1 and p>0.999 for Operator 2).



Conclusion: Our study showed that USB endoscope laryngoscope provided
similar intubation time to video laryngoscopy at a fraction of the cost; and both
had superior times in comparison with direct laryngoscopy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 43 No. 2 (2020)
Section
Original Research
The copyright for articles published in CIM is held by the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation who should be contacted for permission to reproduce the material elsewhere. This will normally be given provided the source of publication in CIM is given.