Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34330219›Full record

Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2021

Comparison of the novel VieScope with conventional and video laryngoscope in a difficult airway scenario - a randomized, controlled simulation trial.

Hannes Ecker, Simone Kolvenbach, Sebastian Stranz, Holger Herff, Wolfgang A Wetsch

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Vie Scope® versus videolaryngoscopy in expected difficult airways: a randomized controlled trial.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023
    Trial
  2. Impact of VieScope® on first-attempt success during simulated COVID-19 patients intubation: A randomized cross-over simulation trial.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2023
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Trends in Preoperative Airway Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  6. Comparing devices for managing the difficult airway.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Recent advances in airway management.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Hannes EckerUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty, and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Simone KolvenbachUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty, and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Sebastian StranzUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty, and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Holger HerffUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty, and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Wolfgang A WetschUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty, and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. wolfgang.wetsch@uk-koeln.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndotracheal intubation continues to be the gold standard for securing the airway in emergency situations. Difficult intubation is still a dreadful situation when securing the airway.

objectiveTo compare VieScope with Glidescope and conventional Macintosh laryngoscopy (MAC) in a simulated difficult airway situation.

methodsIn this randomized controlled simulation trial, 35 anesthesiologists performed endotracheal intubation using VieScope, GlideScope and MAC in a randomized order on a certified airway manikin with difficult airway.

resultsFor the primary endpoint of correct tube position, no statistical difference was found (p = 0.137). Time until intubation for GlideScope (27.5 ± 20.3 s) and MAC (20.8 ± 8.1 s) were shorter compared to the VieScope (36.3 ± 10.1 s). Time to first ventilation, GlideScope (39.3 ± 21.6 s) and MAC (31.9 ± 9.5 s) were also shorter compared to the VieScope (46.5 ± 12.4 s). There was no difference shown between handling time for VieScope (20.7 ± 7.0 s) and time until intubation with GlideScope or MAC. Participants stated a better Cormack & Lehane Score with VieScope, compared to direct laryngoscopy.

conclusionRate of correct tracheal tube position was comparable between the three devices. Time to intubation and ventilation were shorter with MAC and Glidescope compared to VieScope. It did however show a comparable handling time to video laryngoscopy and MAC. It also did show a better visualization of the airway in the Cormack & Lehane Score compared to MAC.

trial registrationThe study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Identifier: DRKS00024968 ) on March 31st 2021.

Indexed as

Intubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopesAdolescentAdultAgedAirway ManagementEquipment DesignHumansLaryngoscopyManikinsMiddle AgedVideo RecordingYoung AdultDifficult airwayDifficult airway managementEndotracheal intubationVideo-laryngoscopyVieScope

Identifiers

PMID34330219
PMCPMC8323300

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.