Open AccessWhy USB-endoscope laryngoscopy is as effective as video laryngoscopy
Author(s) -
Meliha Fındık,
Afşin Emre Kayıpmaz,
Cemil Kavalcı,
Tuğçe Şençelikel,
Murat Muratoğlu,
Aysegul Akcebe,
Bülent Güngörer,
Gülsüm Kavalcı
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical and investigative medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.391
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1488-2353
pISSN - 0147-958X
DOI - 10.25011/cim.v43i2.33956
Subject(s) - usb , laryngoscopy , video laryngoscope , endoscope , medicine , intubation , significant difference , anesthesia , tracheal intubation , surgery , computer hardware , computer science , operating system , software
Purpose: To compare the efficacy of a low-cost custom-made universal serial
bus (USB) endoscope laryngoscope for intubation with a direct laryngoscope
and a high-cost video laryngoscope in a mannequin study.
Methods: We used one intubation simulator model (mannequin) in our study.
A USB endoscope was mounted to the direct laryngoscope as a custom-made
USB endoscope laryngoscope (USB-L). We used a video laryngoscope
(Glidescope®, Verathon, USA) and a direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for
comparison. Intubation time and the correct placement of the tube were
measured. Intubations were performed by two operators and results were
compared.
Results: We found a statistically significant difference between the video and
direct laryngoscope groups (p < 0.001), as well as between the USB-L and
direct laryngoscope groups (p = 0.001) for Operator 1. For Operator 2, there
was a statistically significant difference between the video laryngoscope group
and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.022); however, we did not find a
significant difference between the USB-L group and the direct laryngoscope
group (p = 0.154). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between
the USB-L and video laryngoscope groups for either operator (p=0.347 for
Operator 1 and p>0.999 for Operator 2).
Conclusion: Our study showed that USB endoscope laryngoscope provided
similar intubation time to video laryngoscopy at a fraction of the cost; and both
had superior times in comparison with direct laryngoscopy.