An Evaluation of the Intubrite Laryngoscope in Simulated In-Hospital and Out-of-Hospital Settings by Individuals with No Clinical Experience: A Randomized, Cross-Over, Manikin Study.

Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the Intubrite laryngoscope and the standard Macintosh blade laryngoscope (MCL) used by persons with no clinical experience in simulated hospital and non-hospital conditions on a manikin model. Materials and methods: The study involved 50 students of Medical Rescue. The hospital conditions (intubation height 110 cm—high position) and those occurring at the scene (intubation of a manikin located at floor level-low position) were simulated. The analysis included: duration of intubation, visibility of the laryngeal opening by the Cormack−Lehane scale, the bioelectrical activity of the intubating muscles, comfort and subjective assessment of physical effort by the Borg scale (Borg’s scale of subjective feeling of effort). The statistical analysis was performed with Microsoft Excel and T-student tests for pairs with unequal variables. The statistical importance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The use of an Intubrite laryngoscope significantly reduces the mean endotracheal intubation time compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope in a low position (17.34 s versus 19.04 s, p < 0.05). A higher rate of repeat intubations was observed in a low position for MCL (from 10% to 14%, p < 0.05). The reverse is true for Intubrite laryngoscope intubation (from 8% to 4%, p < 0.05 Please explain what is compared). The Intubrite laryngoscope improved visualization of glottis in the high and the low positions compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope (54% and 50% to 52% and 38%, respectively, p < 0.05). The risk of tooth damage was the same for the Intubrite and the MCL laryngoscopes in a high position (16% and 14%, respectively, p > 0.05), while in the simulated out-of-hospital setting, it was significantly higher for the MCL (22% versus 8%, p < 0.05). The subjective comfort of intubation in both simulated situations was similar according to the Borg scale (p-value, values). The use of the Intubrite laryngoscope was associated with less effort than the MCL in high versus low positions. For MCL, intubation in a high position was associated with lower mean muscle activity than in a low position (+48.24 µV versus +58.25 µV, p-value). For the Intubrite laryngoscope, these values were at similar levels (+52.03 µV and +52.65 µV, p-value). Conclusions: The use of the Intubrite laryngoscope by people with no clinical experience shortens the time of intubation and improves the laryngeal view compared to the standard Macintosh laryngoscope, but it requires similar muscle work in simulated conditions.