12 research outputs found

    Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO2 ® , Glidescope ® , and Airwayscope ® laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization

    Full text link
    Background. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Pentax AWS (R), Glidescope (R), and the Truview EVO2 (R), in comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope, when performing tracheal intubation in patients with neck immobilization using manual in-line axial cervical spine stabilization. One hundred and twenty consenting patients presenting for surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using a Macintosh (n=30), Glidescope (R) (n=30), Truview EVO2 (R) (n=30), or AWS (R) (n=30) laryngoscope. All patients were intubated by one of the three anaesthetists experienced in the use of each laryngoscope. The Glidescope (R), AWS (R), and Truview EVO2 (R) each reduced the intubation difficulty score (IDS), improved the Cormack and Lehane glottic view, and reduced the need for optimization manoeuvres, compared with the Macintosh. The mean IDS was significantly lower with the Glidescope (R) and AWS (R) compared with the Truview EVO2 (R) device, and the IDS was lowest with the AWS (R). The duration of tracheal intubation attempts was significantly shorter with the Macintosh compared with the other devices. There were no differences in success rates between the devices tested. The AWS (R) produced the least haemodynamic stimulation. The Glidescope (R) and AWS (R) laryngoscopes required more time but reduced intubation difficulty and improved glottic view over the Macintosh laryngoscope more than the Truview EVO2 (R) laryngoscope when used in patients undergoing cervical spine immobilization

    Comparison of the c-mac® videolaryngoscope with the macintosh, glidescope®, and airtraq® laryngoscopes in easy and difficult laryngoscopy scenarios in manikins

    No full text
    P>The C-MAC (R) comprises a Macintosh blade connected to a video unit. The familiarity of the Macintosh blade, and the ability to use the C-MAC as a direct or indirect laryngoscope, may be advantageous. We wished to compare the C-MAC with Macintosh, Glidescope (R) and Airtraq (R) laryngoscopes in easy and simulated difficult laryngoscopy. Thirty-one experienced anaesthetists performed tracheal intubation in an easy and difficult laryngoscopy scenario. The duration of intubation attempts, success rates, number of intubation attempts and of optimisation manoeuvres, the severity of dental compression, and difficulty of device use were recorded. In easy laryngoscopy, the duration of tracheal intubation attempts were similar with the C-MAC, Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes; the Glidescope performed less well. The C-MAC and Airtraq provided the best glottic views, but the C-MAC was rated as the easiest device to use. In difficult laryngo-scopy the C-MAC demonstrated the shortest tracheal intubation times. The Airtraq provided the best glottic view, with the Macintosh providing the worst view. The C-MAC was the easiest device to use

    Ultradeep Rocks and Diamonds in the Light of Advanced Scientific Technologies

    No full text
    corecore