The comparison of the technical parameters in endotracheal intubation devices: the Cmac, the Vividtrac, the McGrath Mac and the Kingvision
Tóm tắt
Currently, there are plenty of videolaryngoscopes that appear on the market. They have different specifications. Some of these features favor the fact that they are more suited for educational purposes of future operators and others can be characterized with an excellent clinical use. In this study we compared four types of videolaryngoscopes. The aim of the study was to compare the technical specifications of the above-mentioned devices for usefulness in clinical practice and correlate these parameters with the subjective evaluation of these videolaryngoscopes usage performed in practice by an experienced medical staff. All devices considered in this study participated in another multicenter clinical study on the basis of which we completed the subjective evaluation of the operators. In order to examine the technical parameters of the equipment we established the cooperation with the Department of Microelectronics at Technical University of Lodz. Mechanical and optical parameters and the endoscopic tube current were taken into consideration. The C-MAC has a camera with the widest viewing angle (the OX axis—63.1, the axis OY—47.8), which in combination with the largest diagonal size of the display enables the operator to see the details relevant to clinical practice. It has also the strongest lamp intensity of the devices mentioned in this comparison (7800 Lx). In comparison of the clinical use in almost all compared parameters the Cmac D-blade is a winner, although for clinical education purpose we consider the Vividtrac a better device.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Chemsian RV, Bhananker S, Ramaiah R. Videolaryngoscopy. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014;4(1):35–41.
Wayne MA, McDonnell M. Comparison of traditional versus videolaryngoscopy in out-of-hospital tracheal intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(2):278–82.
Nouruzi-Sedeh P, Schumann M, Groeben H. Laryngoscopy via Macintosh blade versus GlideScope: success rate and time for endotracheal intubation in untrained medical personnel. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:32–7.
Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, Klein R, Umedaly HS, Moult M. The GlideScope video laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:381–4.
Platts-Mills TF, Campagne D, Chinnock B, Snowden B, Glickman LT, Hendey GW. A comparison of GlideScope videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16:866–71.
Lim HC, Goh SH. Utilization of a GlideScope videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubations in different emergency airway management settings. Eur J Emerg Med. 2009;16:68–73.
http://www.kingsystems.com/medical-devices-supplies-products/airway-management/video-laryngoscopes/.
http://www.emsworld.com/product/10772836/karl-storz-endoscopy-america-inc-c-mac-pocket-monitor.
http://creative.epsinternet.com/apps/mediabucket2/C-MAC-EW-hryb.pdf.
Ray DC, Billington C, Kearns PK, Kirkbride R, Mackintosh K. A comparison of McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(11):1207–10.
Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Case series: the McGrath videolaryngoscope- an initial clinical evaluation. Can J Anesth. 2007;54:307–13.
Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Use of McGrath videolaryngoscope in the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:116–9.
Shimada N, Hayashi K, Sugimoto K, Takahashi M, Niwa Y, Takeuchi M. The KINGVISION: clinical assessment of performance in 50 patients. Masui. 2013;62(6):757–60.
Hayashi K, Shimada N, Shiba J, Niwa Y, Takeuchi M. A manikin study of the KingVision videolaryngoscope compared with Airwayscope. Masui. 2014;63(8):927–30.
Healy D, Picton P, Morris M, Turner C. Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:11.
Lipe DN, Lindstrom R, Tauferner D, Mitchell C, Moffett P. Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ device versus traditional airway suction in a cadaver model. West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(4):548–53.
Mutlak H, Rolle U, Rosskopf W, Schalk R, Zacharowski K, Meininger D, Byhahn C. Comparison of the TruView infant EVO2 PCD™ and C-MAC video laryngoscopes with direct Macintosh laryngoscopy for routine tracheal intubation in infants with normal Airways. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014;69(1):23–7.
Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL, Lee K, Segal R. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109(3):439–43.
Taylor AM, Peck M, Launcelott S, Hung OR, Law JA, MacQuarrie K, McKeen D, George RB, Ngan J. The McGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs the Macintoshlaryngoscope: a randomised, controlled trial in patients with a simulated difficult airway. Anaesthesia. 2013;68(2):142–7. doi:10.1111/anae.12075.
Gaszynski T. Clinical experience with the C-Mac videolaryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. Anaesthesiol Inten Ther. 2014;46(1):14–6.