ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 376-381

Use of Airtraq, C-Mac, and Glidescope laryngoscope is better than Macintosh in novice medical students' hands: A manikin study


1 Department of Anaesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Abdullah M Kaki
Department of Anaesthesia & Critical Care, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, P.O. Box 2907, Jeddah 21461
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.87266

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aim: Obtaining patent airway is a crucial task for many physicians. When opportunities to practice intubations on patients are really limited, skill gaining methods are needed. We conducted a study among novice 6 th year medical students to assess their ability to intubate the trachea in normal airway in manikin using four airway tools. Setting and Design: Prospective, cohort study conducted at simulation center of university-based, tertiary care hospital. Methods: Fifty medical students performed either oral or nasal tracheal intubation using the following four intubating tools: C-Mac videolaryngoscope, Glidescope, and Airtraq in comparison with regular Macintosh laryngoscope. Intubation time, visualization of glottic opening, ease of intubation, satisfaction of participants, incidence of dental trauma, and the need for optimization manoeuvres' use among different airway tools were recorded. Results: In oral intubation, Airtraq was better than others in regard to intubation time, glottic opening, ease of intubation, and the need for external laryngeal pressure application, followed by Glidescope, C-Mac, and finally Macintosh laryngoscope ( P<0.001). Airtraq and Glidescope associated with less dental trauma than C-Mac and Macintosh. In nasal route, fastest intubation time was reported with Airtraq followed by Glidescope, C-Mac, and lastly Macintosh. Airtraq, Glidescope, and C-Mac were similar to each other and better than the Macintosh in regard to ease of intubation, satisfaction, and number of attempts (P≤0.008). Conclusions: New devices like Airtraq, Glidescope, and C-Mac are better than the regular Macintosh when used by novice medical students for oral and nasal intubation on manikin.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3912    
    Printed189    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded280    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 8    

Recommend this journal