Open AccessEfficacy of RAMA Mobile Video Laryngoscope (RAMA-mVL) Versus McGrath® for Tracheal Intubation in Manikin. A Randomized Study
Author(s) -
Panvilai Tangkulpanich,
Natsinee Athinartrattanapong,
Porawin Ussawapita,
Phanorn Chalermdamrichai,
Jarupol Tuangsirisup
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
ramathibodi medical journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2651-0561
DOI - 10.33165/rmj.2021.44.4.249901
Subject(s) - intubation , medicine , tracheal intubation , anesthesia , significant difference , orotracheal intubation
Background: Video laryngoscope (VL) has increased the success rate of intubation but the commercial VL is unaffordable for community hospitals. Therefore, Ramathibodi mobile VL (RAMA-mVL) was invented to close the gap and expected that it would be equivalent to the current device and lower price.Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intubation, compare by using RAMA-mVL and McGrath®Methods: The randomized, single-blinded study of the success intubation between RAMA-mVL and McGrath® was conducted in a manikin. Medical personnel with intubation experiences was included and trained before performing the procedure. The success rate for one best shot of intubation, time to intubation, satisfaction, and value between both VL were recorded and analyzedResults: A total of 208 persons entered the research, 104 in each group. The success rate for intubation by using both VL is 100%. The mean of time to intubation using RAMA-mVL was significantly less than that of McGrath®, which were 9.12 (±4.28) and 11.19 (±5.04) seconds, respectively (95% CI 0.001 - 0.9, P = .002). The satisfaction with innovation that is easy to build between RAMA-mVL and McGrath® was 4.88 (±0.32) and 4.23 (±0.96) points (95% CI 0.46 - 0.85, P < .001). Additionally, the cost of RAMA-mVL was cheaper than McGrath®.Conclusions: RAMA-mVL performed equivalent and even better than McGrath® compared by intubation success rate, mean intubation time, satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness.