ArticleBMC anesthesiology2023
Disposable laryngoscope intubation to reduce equipment failure in an emergency out of OR setting - a quality control case study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReusable laryngoscopes have been reported to be superior to disposable laryngoscopes with plastic blades during emergent intubations. Surprisingly, at our institution a quality reporting system revealed a high number of equipment failures with reusable laryngoscopes in an emergency out-of-OR (operating room) setting. As recent studies indicated an improved quality of disposable laryngoscopes, we hypothesized that a thoroughly evaluated disposable laryngoscope would result in less equipment failure in an emergency out-of-OR setting.
methodsTo perform a more standardized and time efficient analysis, four distinct disposable laryngoscope blade/handle configurations were trialed during standard intubations (n = 4 × 30) in the OR by experienced anesthesia providers who completed a 6-question, Likert-scale/open-ended survey for product evaluation. The 'best' disposable blade was implemented in an emergency out-of-OR setting and equipment failure rates were monitored over a 3-year period.
resultsDifferent disposable laryngoscopes were equal regarding sturdiness, illumination and airway visualization. The laryngoscope with the highest overall score was significantly higher scored than the laryngoscope with the lowest overall score. All disposable laryngoscopes were more cost effective than the reusable ones, and the top scored laryngoscope demonstrated the highest 5-year cost-saving ($210 K). Implementation of the top scored disposable laryngoscope into an emergency out-of-OR setting reduced the equipment failure incidence from high 20s to 0.
conclusionDisposable laryngoscopes are cost effective and superior to reusable laryngoscopes in an emergency out-of-OR setting. We demonstrate that the implementation of a disposable laryngoscope in the emergency out-of-OR setting resulted in a near elimination of equipment related quality submissions which ultimately enhances patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.