Comparison of Direct Laryngoscopy and Video Laryngoscopy Methods in Difficult and Easy Airway Models: Manikin Study.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, our objective was to investigate whether video laryngoscopy has any advantage over direct laryngoscopy. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted on an experimental research simulator after the obtainment of the approval of the Ethics Committee. The study was conducted on the manikin Airsim Advance Combo. The volunteers were asked to carry out video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in both easy and difficult airway These variables were compared with the Wilcoxon test. We used the Mann-Whitney U test for the evaluation of the differences between the anesthetists and anesthesia technicians regarding the duration of the intubation. The accepted limit of significance was p < 0.05. RESULTS: 24 volunteer anesthetists and anesthesia technicians were included in the study. After the statistical analysis, we did not detect any significant difference between the duration of direct intubation regarding the easy and difficult airway (p > 0.05).The statistical analysis did not reveal any significant difference between the laryngoscopy methods also in the difficult airway model (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We showed on a simulator that there was no statistically significant difference between the duration of the intubation between direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy both in the easy and difficult airway.

A comparative randomized trial of intubation success in difficult intubation cases: the use of a Frova intubation catheter versus a Bonfils intubation fiberoscope.

INTRODUCTION: A difficult airway is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality in patients who undergo surgical interventions. Therefore, many devices and algorithms have been developed for the management of a difficult airway. However no study has been conducted comparing Frova catheter (FC) and a Bonfils fiberoscope (BF) to date. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and success of two devices, a FC and BF, in difficult intubation cases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Design: Single-centre randomized controlled trial in patients with difficult airways. The assignment order was created by unplanned number charts, and the assignment was hidden in closed covers, which were not unlocked until case permission had been provided. Setting: The trial was undertaken in a university hospital in Turkey. The primary analysis was based on 60 participants (n = 30, n = 30) with difficult intubation. The main outcomes were the success rates of placement of the tracheal tube in the trachea and the duration of the tracheal intubation process. RESULTS: In the BF group, successful intubation was carried out in 25 of the 30 (83.3%) patients, whereas intubation was successful in 28 of the 30 patients (93.3%) in the FC group. Patients who could not be intubated with the first device were intubated with the other device. The mean duration of intubation was 109 (85-140) s in the BF group, whereas it was 38.8 (26-60) s in the FC group. CONCLUSIONS: Both devices were successful in difficult intubation cases. However, given the shorter duration of intubation using the FC and its lower cost as compared with that of the BF, the FC can be considered superior to the BF in difficult intubation cases.