<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec><h3>Background</h3>
<p>The procedures of introducing an airway by intubation are associated with increased risk of aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2 virus, posing a high risk to the personnel involved. Newer and novel methods such as the intubation box have been developed to increase the safety of healthcare workers during intubation.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Methods (design)</h3>
<p>In this study, 33 anaesthesiologist and critical care specialists intubated the trachea of the airway manikin (US Laerdal Medical AS™) 4 times using a King Vision<sup>®</sup> videolaryngoscope and TRUVIEW PCD™ videolaryngoscope (with and without an intubation box as described by Lai). Intubation time was primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were first-pass intubation success rate, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score and peak force to maxillary incisors.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Results</h3>
<p>Intubation time and the number of times a click was heard during tracheal intubation were considerably higher in both groups when an intubation box was used (<xref ref-type="table" rid="j_rjaic-2021-0004_tab_001">Table 1</xref>). When comparing the two laryngoscopes, the King Vision<sup>®</sup> videolaryngoscope enabled much less time to intubate than did the TRUVIEW laryngoscope, both with and without the intubation box. (P&lt;0.001) In both laryngoscope groups, first-pass successful intubation was higher without the intubation box, although the difference was statistically insignificant. POGO score was not affected by intubation box but a higher score was observed with King Vision<sup>®</sup> laryngoscope (<xref ref-type="table" rid="j_rjaic-2021-0004_tab_001">Tables 1</xref>,<xref ref-type="table" rid="j_rjaic-2021-0004_tab_002">2</xref>).</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>This study indicates that use of an intubation box makes intubation difficult and increases the time needed to perform it. King Vision<sup>®</sup> videolaryngoscope results in lesser intubation time and better glottic view as compared to TRUVIEW laryngoscope.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Background
The procedures of introducing an airway by intubation are associated with increased risk of aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2 virus, posing a high risk to the personnel involved. Newer and novel methods such as the intubation box have been developed to increase the safety of healthcare workers during intubation.

Methods (design)
In this study, 33 anaesthesiologist and critical care specialists intubated the trachea of the airway manikin (US Laerdal Medical AS™) 4 times using a King Vision® videolaryngoscope and TRUVIEW PCD™ videolaryngoscope (with and without an intubation box as described by Lai). Intubation time was primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were first-pass intubation success rate, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score and peak force to maxillary incisors.

Results
Intubation time and the number of times a click was heard during tracheal intubation were considerably higher in both groups when an intubation box was used (Table 1). When comparing the two laryngoscopes, the King Vision® videolaryngoscope enabled much less time to intubate than did the TRUVIEW laryngoscope, both with and without the intubation box. (P<0.001) In both laryngoscope groups, first-pass successful intubation was higher without the intubation box, although the difference was statistically insignificant. POGO score was not affected by intubation box but a higher score was observed with King Vision® laryngoscope (Tables 1,2).

Conclusion
This study indicates that use of an intubation box makes intubation difficult and increases the time needed to perform it. King Vision® videolaryngoscope results in lesser intubation time and better glottic view as compared to TRUVIEW laryngoscope.

Evaluation of the effect of Intubation Box Use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision<sup>®</sup> and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Evaluation of the effect of Intubation Box Use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background
The procedures of introducing an airway by intubation are associated with increased risk of aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2 virus, posing a high risk...

Coordinates	TRUVIEW Laryngoscope (n=30)		P value^†	King Vision^® Laryngoscope (n=30)		P value^†

	Without I.B.	With I.B.		Without I.B.	With I.B.
Time to Successful Intubation (sec)	21.2±1.69	31.13±2.15	<0.001	15.80±1.13	23.37±1.17	<0.001
First Pass Intubation Success Rate^*	29	24	0.103	30	26	0.112
Click	0	7	0.011	0	6	0.024
Pogo Score^*	75–100	75–100	0.744	100	100	1.00

Coordinates	With Intubation Box			Without Intubation Box

	TRUVIEW video-laryngoscope (n=30)	King Vision^® video-laryngoscope (n=30)	P value^†	TRUVIEW video-laryngoscope (n=30)	King Vision^® video-laryngoscope (n=30)	P value^†
Intubation Time (sec)	31.13±2.15	23.37±1.17	<0.001	21.20±1.69	15.80±1.13	<0.001
First Pass Success^*	24	26	0.729	29	30	1.00
Click	7	6	1.00	0	0	1.00
POGO Score^*	75%(n=6)	100(N=30)	0.011	75%(n=5)	100(n=30)	0.021
	100%(n=24)			100%(n=25)

Evaluation of the effect of Intubation Box Use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision^® and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Article Category: Original Article

Publicado en línea: 25 sept 2022

Páginas: 25 - 28

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rjaic-2021-0004

Palabras clave
Airway management, anaesthesiologist, intubation, SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, manikin, laryngoscope

© 2021 Nazia Nazir, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Comparison of Coordinates of Tracheal Intubation Difficulty on Manikin Without And With Intubation Box.

Comparison of Coordinates of Tracheal Intubation Difficulty Among the Two Laryngoscopes With And Without Use of Intubation Box.

Evaluation of the effect of Intubation Box Use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision® and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Article Category: Original Article

Publicado en línea: 25 sept 2022

Páginas: 25 - 28

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rjaic-2021-0004

Palabras claveAirway management, anaesthesiologist, intubation, SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, manikin, laryngoscope

© 2021 Nazia Nazir, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Comparison of Coordinates of Tracheal Intubation Difficulty on Manikin Without And With Intubation Box.

Comparison of Coordinates of Tracheal Intubation Difficulty Among the Two Laryngoscopes With And Without Use of Intubation Box.

Evaluation of the effect of Intubation Box Use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision^® and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Palabras clave
Airway management, anaesthesiologist, intubation, SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, manikin, laryngoscope