Low-cost versus high-fidelity pediatric simulators for difficult airway management training: a randomized study in continuing medical education

Abstract Background: High-fidelity (HF) pediatric patient simulators are expensive. This randomized study aimed to compare the quality and educational impact of a full-scale simulation workshop with an HF infant simulator (SimBaby™, Laerdal) or with a low-cost (LC) simulator composed of an inert infant manikin with SimBaby™ software that displays respiratory/hemodynamic parameters on a monitor for medical education in pediatric difficult airway management. Methods: After written informed consent, anesthetists and emergency or ICU physicians participated in teams (4 to 6 participants) in a training session that included direct participation and observation of two difficult intubation scenarios. They were randomized into two groups (HF group, n = 65 and LC group, n = 63). They filled out a simulation quality score (SQS, 0 to 50), self-evaluated their anesthetists' non-technical skills (ANTS) score (15 to 60), and an educational quality score (EQS, 0 to 60) immediately (T0, main criteria), as well as 3 (T3) and 6 (T6) months after the training session. Results: We enrolled 128 physicians. Direct participation SQS (39 ± 5 HF group versus 38 ± 5 LC group), observation SQS (41 ± 4 H F group versus 39 ± 5 LC group), ANTS scores (38 ± 4 HF group versus 39 ± 6 LC group), T0 SQS (44 ± 5 HF group versus 43 ± 6 LC group), T3 and T6 SQS were not different between groups. Conclusion: Our low-cost simulator should be suggested as a less expensive alternative to an HF simulator for continuing medical education in pediatric difficult airway management.

Low-cost versus high-fidelity pediatric simulators for difficult airway management training: a randomized study in continuing medical education.

BACKGROUND: High-fidelity (HF) pediatric patient simulators are expensive. This randomized study aimed to compare the quality and educational impact of a full-scale simulation workshop with an HF infant simulator (SimBaby™, Laerdal) or with a low-cost (LC) simulator composed of an inert infant manikin with SimBaby™ software that displays respiratory/hemodynamic parameters on a monitor for medical education in pediatric difficult airway management. METHODS: After written informed consent, anesthetists and emergency or ICU physicians participated in teams (4 to 6 participants) in a training session that included direct participation and observation of two difficult intubation scenarios. They were randomized into two groups (HF group, n = 65 and LC group, n = 63). They filled out a simulation quality score (SQS, 0 to 50), self-evaluated their anesthetists' non-technical skills (ANTS) score (15 to 60), and an educational quality score (EQS, 0 to 60) immediately (T0, main criteria), as well as 3 (T3) and 6 (T6) months after the training session. RESULTS: We enrolled 128 physicians. Direct participation SQS (39 ± 5 HF group versus 38 ± 5 LC group), observation SQS (41 ± 4 H F group versus 39 ± 5 LC group), ANTS scores (38 ± 4 HF group versus 39 ± 6 LC group), T0 SQS (44 ± 5 HF group versus 43 ± 6 LC group), T3 and T6 SQS were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: Our low-cost simulator should be suggested as a less expensive alternative to an HF simulator for continuing medical education in pediatric difficult airway management.

Randomised comparison of Enk™ and Manujet™ for emergency tracheal oxygenation with a high-fidelity full-scale simulation.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare time and difficulties of emergency tracheal oxygenation with Enk™ or Manujet™ by anaesthesiologists or intensivists, in a full-scale cannot ventilate and intubate scenarios on a SimMan3G™ high-fidelity patient simulator. METHODS: After ethical committee approval and written informed consent, teams (two to three learners with at least one physician senior) participating at a difficult airway training with a massive sublingual haematoma scenario, were randomised in Enk™ (E) group (29 teams, 76 learners) and Manujet™ (M) group (31 teams, 84 learners) according to the device at disposal. Main criterion was time between taking device in hand and first insufflation delay. Data were medians [25-75%]. RESULTS: The handling-insufflation time was shorter with Enk™ than with Manujet™ (74 [54-87] seconds versus 95 [73-123] seconds (s), P=0.0112). The team number performing insufflation within one minute after device handling was higher in the E group (8, 27.6%) than in the M group (2, 6.4%) (P=0.0392) as well as the team number performing insufflation within 90s in the E group (22, 75.09%) than in the M group (12, 38.7%) (P=0.0047). In E group, 75% of learners reported no difficulty versus 58.8% in M group (P=0.0443). Insufflation frequency was high in both groups and higher than 12min-1 in 51.7% of the teams. CONCLUSION: In a simulation context, Enk™ use is faster and easier. A high insufflation rate was also in favour of Enk™ that generates lower airway pressures.

What are the factors associated with successful I-gel™ insertion and uneventful anaesthesia in children under age two?

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to evaluate I-gel™ sizes 1 and 1.5. METHODS: I-gel™ insertion was attempted in 60 children<2 years of age undergoing short elective surgery. The main endpoints were the determination of independent factors associated with successful first attempt insertion and those associated with uneventful anaesthesia (i.e. no adverse events during insertion or during the intraoperative period of removal). RESULTS: Size 1 and size 1.5 I-gel™ devices were used (intraoperatively) in 33 and 27 cases, respectively. Median age and weight were 3 (1-12) months and 4.97 (4.00-9.00) kg. Ventilation modes were spontaneous breathing (8.3%), pressure support (45%), controlled pressure (15%) or volume (31.7%) ventilation. I-gel™ insertion was successful on the first attempt in 45 cases (75%). A time between induction and insertion>11min (OR: 4.85 [1.08-21.77]) and age<6 months (OR: 5.501 [1.20-16.8]) were identified as the independent factors of successful first attempt insertion (AUC: 0.715). Adverse events were reported in 35 (58.3%) cases, during insertion in 18 (30%) cases, during the intraoperative period in 25 (41.7%) cases and/or during recovery in 3 (5.08%) cases. Age<6 months (OR: 4.497 [1.197-16.89]) and I-gel™ removal in the operating room (OR: 6.034 [1.153-31.577]) were identified as independent factors associated with uneventful anaesthesia (AUC: 0.761). CONCLUSION: I-gel™ sizes 1 and 1.5 were interesting alternatives to intubation with all ventilation modes. However, the high incidence of adverse events calls for careful monitoring. The superiority of removal under anaesthesia must be confirmed.

Continuous peripheral nerve block for postoperative pain control at home: a prospective feasibility study in children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We assessed the feasibility and efficacy of postoperative pain control by continuous peripheral nerve blockade (CPNB) in children after early home discharge under parental surveillance. METHODS: All children scheduled for primary elective ankle or foot surgery under sciatic popliteal CPNB and general anesthesia were evaluated. After obtaining the surgeon's consent, the children were discharged on either the day (D) of surgery (D0), or on postoperative D1 or D2 (depending on whether they needed a plaster cast or a suction drainage). The CPNB was continuously infused, using an elastomeric pump. Before the procedure, the parents were taught how to assess their children's pain, to use rescue analgesia, and to manage an infusion elastomeric pump device, and when to call the hospital in case of emergency. The children returned to the hospital for catheter removal and the recording of any postoperative event. RESULTS: Forty-seven children were entered into this observational study. Two were discharged home on the same day, 30 were discharged home 1 day after surgery, and 15 were discharged home 2 days after surgery. The mean duration of infusion elastomeric pump at home was 3 days (range, 2 to 4 days). Analgesia was rated as excellent or good in 89% of the cases, and the quality of sleep was always good, except for three patients. Some minor untoward effects were recorded. Two children returned to the hospital because of accidental disconnection of the infusion elastomeric pump from the catheter. Four patients presented skin redness at the puncture site, but no infection was observed, and all catheters remained sterile. No parents called the hospital. The children's quality of life was rated as excellent or as satisfactory overall, by both the children and their parents. CONCLUSIONS: Shortening hospital stays with the use of at-home CPNB under sole parental supervision is feasible, after selecting children with a suitable family environment.