ABSTRACT
Emergency and disaster medical care often face resource or equipment shortages. 3D printing technology has been proven to be effective in cases with insufficient supply chains. MAYO tubes and stethoscopes are essential components of ABCDE patient examinations; however, 3D-printed variants have not been fully tested. These 3D-printed instruments were substituted and validated in a simulated pre-hospital environment. In total, 26 participants were included in this study. Fifteen clinicians or paramedics with at least 3 years of professional experience and 10 medical students. One student was excluded because he had relevant experience with emergency care. As basic tasks, the placement of MAYO tubes and auscultation with stethoscopes were performed using medical simulators. 3D printed instruments were compared with conventional clinical devices by measuring the time required for the intervention, success rate, and user satisfaction. In the study FFF (Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), SLS (Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), and SLA (stereolithography) 3D printing were used in this study. The times required for implementation and auscultation were examined for each instrument. There was no significant difference between the MAYO tube (p = 0.798) and the stethoscope (p = 0.676). In the case of stethoscopy, the study investigated the correct diagnosis, and no significant difference was found (p = 0.239), although an interesting trend was observed. Regarding the MAYO tube, the study found no significant difference in correct position formation (p = 0.163). The experience levels of the groups did not influence these factors. However, significant differences in user satisfaction were found in both cases in favour of the conventional versions (p < 0.001). Overall, the results of this study suggest that 3D-printed devices could be suitable replacements for clinic-based devices in emergency situations. The 3D-printed devices did not perform inferiorly at any of the indicated points compared to their classical counterparts. However, the practical applicability of the devices used in this study requires further investigation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Direct laryngoscopy remains the gold standard for endotracheal intubation and is preferred by experienced operators. However, an increasing number of reports currently support videolaryngoscopy, particularly for novice users. The widespread use of videolaryngoscopy may be limited due to financial limitations, especially in low-income countries. Therefore, affordable single-use scopes are now becoming increasingly popular. We sought to compare these new scopes with direct laryngoscopes and the previously tested videolaryngoscopes in mannequins by novices. METHODS: Fifty medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students were asked to execute endotracheal intubation with each of the devices, including the Airtraq®, a custom-made videolaryngoscope, the King Vision®, the Macintosh laryngoscope and the VividTrac®, on an airway trainer (Laerdal Airway Management Trainer®) in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and the proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma and user satisfaction. RESULTS: We observed no differences in esophageal intubation. However, intubation-related times, the view of the glottis and operator satisfaction were significantly better throughout the study with the commercial videolaryngoscopes. In comparison, the custom-made videolaryngoscope performance proved to be similar to that of the Macintosh laryngoscope. The VividTrac® performance was similar (P > 0.05) or significantly better than that of the King Vision® in both scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon our results, the Airtraq®, King Vision® and VividTrac® were superior to the Macintosh laryngscope in both normal and difficult airway scencarios for novice users. In particular, our study is the first to report that the VividTrac® shows promise for further clinical evaluation.
