ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the GlideRite with the conventional-malleable-stylet (CMS) in endotracheal intubation (ETI) using the Macintosh-laryngoscope. METHODS: This study is a randomized crossover simulation study. Participants performed ETI using both the GlideRite and the CMS in the normal airway and in a tongue edema (simulated difficult airway resulting in lower percentage of glottis opening [POGO]) model. RESULTS: In both the normal and the tongue edema models, all 36 participants performed ETI successfully using the two stylets on the first attempt. In the normal airway model, there was no difference in time required for ETI (T(ETI)) or ease of handling between the two stylets. In the tongue edema model, the T(ETI) increased as POGO score decreased with the CMS (POGO score showing negative correlation with T(ETI) for the CMS, Spearman's rho=-0.518, p=0.001) but not for the GlideRite (rho=-0.208, p=0.224). The T(ETI) was shorter with the GlideRite than the CMS, but without statistical significance (15.1 vs. 18.8 seconds, p=0.385). Ease of handling was superior with the GlideRite compared to the CMS (p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Performance of the GlideRite and the CMS was not different in the normal airway model. However, in the simulated difficult airway model with a low POGO score, the GlideRite performed better than the CMS for direct laryngoscopic intubation.
Subject(s)
Edema , Glottis , Intubation , Intubation, Intratracheal , TongueABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the GlideRite stylet with the conventional malleable stylet (CMS) in endotracheal intubation (ETI) by the Macintosh laryngoscope. METHODS: This study is a randomized, crossover, simulation study. Participants performed ETI using both the GlideRite stylet and the CMS in a normal airway model and a tongue edema model (simulated difficult airway resulting in lower percentage of glottic opening [POGO]). RESULTS: In both the normal and tongue edema models, all 36 participants successfully performed ETI with the two stylets on the first attempt. In the normal airway model, there was no difference in time required for ETI (TETI) or in ease of handling between the two stylets. In the tongue edema model, the TETI using the CMS increased as the POGO score decreased (POGO score was negatively correlated with TETI for the CMS, Spearman’s rho=-0.518, P=0.001); this difference was not seen with the GlideRite (rho=-0.208, P=0.224). The TETI was shorter with the GlideRite than with the CMS, however, this difference was not statistically significant (15.1 vs. 18.8 seconds, P=0.385). Ease of handling was superior with the GlideRite compared with the CMS (P=0.006). CONCLUSION: Performance of the GlideRite and the CMS were not different in the normal airway model. However, in the simulated difficult airway model with a low POGO score, the GlideRite performed better than the CMS for direct laryngoscopic intubation.