AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightParticipants’ rating was higher on videolaryngoscope (P<0.05).Conclusion: Users with limited endotracheal intubation experience use Video laryncoscopemore effectively than direct laryngoscope in children with normal airway model after training.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of direct and videolaryngoscopy procedures performed by pediatric residents who had limited experience of direct endotracheal intubation and had not previously used video laryngoscopes in a normal airway child manikin.Material and Methods: The endotracheal intubations performed by pediatric residents with adirect laryngoscope and Storz C-MAC videolaryngoscope on a pediatric manikin with a normalairway were compared. Theoretical and practical training was given before the study. In thefirst attempt, the success of the intubation procedure, glottis visual duration, and endotrachealtube insertion time were determined. Practitioners grouped the glottis image between 1-4 according to the Cormack-Lehane Staging (Stage 1 ideal image). After the intervention, the participants scored one to ten points on direct and videolaryngoscopy (1 not useful, 10 very useful).Results: The success of direct and videolaryngoscopy of 51 pediatric residents on the same manikinwas 48 out of 51 (94%) for each method (P> 0.05). Glottis visual duration was similar in both methods (P>0.05); tube insertion and total intubation time were shorter in the video laryngoscope group(P<0.05); glottis image was better in the video laryngoscope group according to Cormack-LehaneClassification (P<0.05). Participants’ rating was higher on videolaryngoscope (P<0.05).Conclusion: Users with limited endotracheal intubation experience use Video laryncoscopemore effectively than direct laryngoscope in children with normal airway model after training.