Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31662911›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine international2019

Comparing Four Video Laryngoscopes and One Optical Laryngoscope with a Standard Macintosh Blade in a Simulated Trapped Car Accident Victim.

Florian J Raimann, Daniel M Tepperis, Dirk Meininger, Kai Zacharowski, Richard Schalk, Christian Byhahn, Christian F Weber, Haitham Mutlak

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Florian J RaimannDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6597-9585
Daniel M TepperisDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Dirk MeiningerMain-Kinzig-Clinic, Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Herzbachweg 14, 63571 Gelnhausen, Germany.
Kai ZacharowskiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0212-9110
Richard SchalkDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Christian ByhahnEvangelical Hospital Oldenburg, Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Steinweg 13-17, 26122 Oldenburg, Germany.
Christian F WeberDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Haitham MutlakDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEEvangelisches Krankenhaus Oldenburg · DEGollwitzer-Meier-Klinik · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTracheal intubation still represents the "gold standard" in securing the airway of unconscious patients in the prehospital setting. Especially in cases of restricted access to the patient, video laryngoscopy became more and more relevant.

objectivesThe aim of the study was to evaluate the performance and intubation success of four different video laryngoscopes, one optical laryngoscope, and a Macintosh blade while intubating from two different positions in a mannequin trial with difficult access to the patient.

methodsA mannequin with a cervical collar was placed on the driver's seat. Intubation was performed with six different laryngoscopes either through the driver's window or from the backseat. Success, C/L score, time to best view (TTBV), time to intubation (TTI), and number of attempts were measured. All participants were asked to rate their favored device.

resultsForty-two physicians participated. 100% of all intubations performed from the backseat were successful. Intubation success through the driver's window was less successful. Only with the Airtraq® optical laryngoscope, 100% success was achieved. Best visualization (window C/L 2a; backseat C/L 2a) and shortest TTBV (window 4.7 s; backseat 4.1 s) were obtained when using the D-Blade video laryngoscope, but this was not associated with a higher success through the driver's window. Fastest TTI was achieved through the window (14.2 s) when using the C-MAC video laryngoscope and from the backseat (7.3 s) when using a Macintosh blade.

conclusionsVideo laryngoscopy revealed better results in visualization but was not associated with a higher success. Success depended on the approach and familiarity with the device. We believe that video laryngoscopy is suitable for securing airways in trapped accident victims. The decision for an optimal device is complicated and should be based upon experience and regular training with the device.

Identifiers

PMID31662911
PMCPMC6791209
OpenAlexW2978721671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.