English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Supraglottic devices are helpful for inexperienced providers who perform ventilation in emergency situations. Most supraglottic devices do not allow secondary tracheal intubation through the device. The novel intubating laryngeal tube (iLTS-D®) and the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach™) are devices that offer supraglottic ventilation and secondary tracheal intubation.    Methods  We evaluated the novel iLTS-D and compared it to the established Fastrach using a manikin-based study. Participants used both devices in a randomised order. The participants conducted four consecutive trials on a manikin. One trial was composed of the following procedures. First, participants ventilated the manikin using either iLTS-D or Fastrach. ‘Time to ventilation’, success rates and number of attempts were recorded for the supraglottic device. Second, participants intubated the manikin through the previously inserted supraglottic device. ‘Time to tracheal ventilation’, success rate and tube localisation were recorded. The primary endpoint was the results of the final fourth trial, which mirrored the standardised training of trials 1, 2 and 3.    Results  A total of 64 participants were enrolled. All of the participants successfully inserted both devices on their first attempt in trial 4. Fastrach was applied 1 s faster in trial 4 than the iLTS-D (median ‘time to ventilation’ Fastrach: 13.5 s., iLTS-D: 14.5 s., p = 0.04). All participants successfully intubated through both devices in trial 4. There was no difference in ‘time to tracheal ventilation’ by tracheal intubation between either device (median ‘time to tracheal ventilation’: Fastrach: 14.0 s., iLTS-D: 14.0 s., p = 0.16).    Conclusion  The iLTS-D performed similarly to the ILMA in insertion and intubation times in a manikin setting.

The novel intubating laryngeal tube (iLTS-D) is comparable to the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach) – a prospective randomised manikin study